The Federal Income tax was created with the 16th Amendment in 1913. This single act became the "cancer" of ceding power to a Federal Government, and a leverage against its people---through taxation---that is debated to this day.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
To be accurate, the United States Congress did enact a federal income tax in 1861 to fund the Civil War, (a flat tax of 3% for incomes above $800), and revised it in 1862, (with a graduated tax of 3%-5% on incomes over $600). The act did have a specified termination date, 1866, but the Politicians had gotten a taste of the poisonous taxation tree---controllable cash in the Federal coffers. When a "similar" entity, The British Government, began taxing the Colonials to defray the cost of maintaining the military presence protecting the colonies, the people rebelled and a Revolution ensued. The outcome was the creation of an independent Nation---A United States of America.
(It should be noted that soon after the rebellion against British taxes, the next step by the Brits was to begin confiscating ALL WEAPONS, starting with the Massachusetts Militia. The Brits were met with a determined corp of "soon to be Americans", and driven out of Boston. Not long after, a Patriotic American sympathizer by the name of George Washington was appointed by Congress to command the Continental Army, and the rest is history.)
I guess the point here is that when any government authority decides to remove two items sacredly precious to its people---their money and their arms---that government should and must consider the ramifications or their actions.
Taxation, and tax reforms have taken place by our Federal Government over our history where funds were rarely ever returned to the people. Not long after the glut of Federal taxation, additional local and state taxation added to this cancer---all in the name of "the public good". In fact, there was a period where the local and state governments taxed its people at an alarming and undisciplined rate according to The Tax Foundation:
“Until 1940, state and local government were responsible for most government spending and collected most government revenues, except during major wars.
The early years of the series hold a surprise, at least from the perspective of 2014. State and local government revenues and outlays were once significantly greater than those of the federal government. In 1930, state and local government receipts were 8.0 percent of GDP to compared 3.3 percent at the federal level, and state and local government outlays were 9.1 of GDP compared to 3.5 percent for the federal government.”
While much higher than before, federal government receipts and expenditures stayed within relatively narrow bands from the midpoint of the 20th century until just before the Great Recession. During the period 1950-2006, federal receipts averaged 17.9 percent of GDP, and federal expenditures averaged 20.9 percent of GDP.[13]" (charts and footnotes can be found from this info above at this link)
Following an FY 2018 Budget Resolution, on Thursday, November 2, 2017, the United States House of Representatives, (thru the Ways and Means Committee), Chairman Kevin Brady introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, one of the most serious tax cut and reform "legislative blueprint" submitted since the Reagan era. I call it a blueprint for the obvious reasons, as, under regular order of the House, the bill is in its infant stage. Changes can and will be made as it moves through the House Chamber, on to the Senate, back to the joint Committee, majority approval by both Chambers, and then on to the President's desk.
As for the Politicians and Policy-makers, (along with their lobbyist "friends" & special interest "investors"), the bill is being met with a wide range of opinions, from guarded optimism from Republicans, to the expected outright disdain from the "we always embrace tax increases" Democrats.
For what it's worth, the Business Insider lays out a fairly good summation of the blueprint with the expenditures and revisions. (For the record this author does not confirm or deny that the information supplied by the BI is completely factual, only that it is basically informative).
Like almost all legislation, there are winners and losers, and no bill is ever considered without controversy, opinions, and, in the case of the Democrats, outright indignant repulsion---surprise, surprise.
As this author has stated above, we've come a long way from when our Government began to tax its people as it, [the Governments, local, states, and Federals], metastasized and legitimized itself in the redistribution of the People's money through taxation. Reforms and/or reductions have rarely materialized since the 16th Amendment.
What may come out of this current legislation is anyone's guess. Under the "proper principle" that what our government takes in---from its people---should be the limit of what it spends, (ok, laugh it up), any form of reduction, (less money taken in and more given back to the people), would be a welcomed outcome, especially when representative taxation has become a joke.
The stakes are high. The power of the government to tax its citizens should be limited and restricted within the boundaries of the will of the People.
Speak up and out, or you will leave most of these decisions into the hands of the Politicians and the Policy-makers in Washington who appear to feel little fear or reservation from their constituents.
Personally, I'd prefer this nation returned to a time when the Federal Government possessed far less of the people's money to run their bureaucratic juggernaut. Our Businessman-turned-President seems to grasp this concept, (or we hope so), as this bill moves forward. What finally reaches his desk remains to be seen.
