[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H1492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kim). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, returning from recess, and Mr. Speaker, I
assure you and others who might be tuned in tonight that it might have
been recess, but it certainly was not play period; instead, it was a
chance to traverse the width and breadth of the Sixth District of
Arizona, some 46,000 square miles in our sixth largest State, I was
struck repeatedly in town hall meetings by the concern Arizonans share
in the notion of tax reform. Indeed, tax is the three-letter-word that
has too often become a four-letter-word because of the circumstances
surrounding the tax burden, because of the seemingly, and in reality,
confiscatory policies that confront law-abiding Americans.
To offer some perspective, I would point to a study conducted by the
Small Business Survival Group that looked back in time to 1913, to the
introduction of the amendment which led to Federal income tax, the 16th
amendment. In conducting this study, the people of the Small Business
Survival Group took a look at what our tax rates would be if that
original act had not been changed through the years. Mr. Speaker, the
results are nothing short of mind-boggling.
For example, if the rates introduced in 1913 were still in effect
today, adjusting for 1996 dollars, the average American, every
American, would be exempt from paying tax on his or her first $59,000
of income. Even more shocking, the tax rate would be at 1 percent up to
$298,000 of income. It is shocking, but true.
Mr. Speaker, even more compelling is this realization that in the
span of time from the adoption of the 16th amendment to our
Constitution allowing for the Federal income tax, in that period of
time, even adjusting for inflation, this Federal Government has grown
in excess of 13,000 percent.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that folks understand
what the gentleman means. I was at a UPS company, United Parcel
Service, talking to the truck drivers. The driver said to me, ``I got
three kids. I got a good job, and I work long hours. I get paid
overtime and make good money. My wife is a schoolteacher. But at the
end of each month, we have no money left over because of our tax
burden.''
His taxes compared to his father, his father in the 1950's paid 5
percent Federal income tax. Today he is paying 24 percent. That is
exactly what you are talking about, that Federal income tax. Once the
Federal Government established a toe-hold, or should I say a hook in
the American back pocket, they never let go. Each year they have
grabbed more and more money out of that gentleman's back pocket. So now
he wants to save money for his kids' college education, he wants to
save money for a vacation, he wants to save money for his long-term
retirement. He cannot. At the end of the month they had zero, because
of the tax burden.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Georgia, for pointing out and making it very personal.
Indeed, I would echo the comments of our good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Smith], who preceded me here in the well, Mr.
Speaker. Lest there is some misinterpretation of this, let me again
state what should be obvious: There is nothing ignoble or selfish or
somehow lacking civic-mindedness for people wanting to hang onto more
of their hard-earned money and send less of it to Washington. Mr.
Speaker, you know something is wrong when the average American family
spends more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there must be a change.
____________________