[BobbyJo]

1) Effective taxes aren't much different today. A married couple with no kids will pay < 5% on 50k. FICA is what makes it higher, so not exactly apples to apples.

2) You're choosing 1917, pre changes, to paint an inaccurate picture. Top rate went from 15% to 67% that year, and 77% the year after. Almost double today's top rate.

What happened was, we introduced a revenue system, and have changed it over time, often dramatically, as the country's needs have changed, both raising and lowering rates. We haven't gone down some crazy spiral of ever increasing tax rates. If anything, the tax situation for the rich has gotten better over time, not worse.

[cjbgkagh]

I choose 1917 because it's both old - the point of this exercise - and right after a lowering of the band $3K to $2K and increased taxes in response to WWI. WWI was quite a dramatic event.

I'm not sure what you're arguing - that it changed dramatically or that it has not changed dramatically. If you're arguing it has changed dramatically then I guess we are in agreement.

You should also note that 1917 was prior to the introduction of sales taxes (1921) and social security taxes (1937). Looking at only federal income tax paints an rather incomplete picture when looking at total tax burdens.

"A married couple with no kids will pay < 5% on 50k" I assume they're dual filing for the 50K so 25K on average? The lower %16 percent of the population. A weird number to pick.

[BobbyJo]

> I'm not sure what you're arguing - that it changed dramatically or that it has not changed dramatically.

Im arguing that the original comment, that income taxes weren't originally intended to be what they are today, or it was some kind of bate and switch, or slow bleeding, that led us to today. That was my read of thread parent anyway.

> You should also note that 1917 was prior to the introduction of sales taxes (1921) and social security taxes (1937). Looking at only federal income tax paints an rather incomplete picture when looking at total tax burdens.

We aren't arguing about total tax burden, we are arguing that a new kind of tax will/won't necessarily be abused and changed post introduction. Those three tax vectors prove that they won't be if anything, as they haven't changed much since introduction either.

>A married couple with no kids will pay < 5% on 50k" I assume they're dual filing for the 50K so 25K on average? The lower %16 percent of the population.

1) Most households were single income in 1917. 2) 50k was inflation adjusted equivalent to numbers that I was responding to. I didn't pick it at random, I chose it to show things hadn't changed much.