4 ms·

It serves as a cautionary tale. Just keep in mind that whenever some politician proposes a tax only on the richest Americans, and that tax is very very small, i

It serves as a cautionary tale. Just keep in mind that whenever some politician proposes a tax only on the richest Americans, and that tax is very very small, it won't stay that way. The highest rate in 1913 was 7%. Today the lowest rate is 10%.

danans 5y ago
> The highest rate in 1913 was 7%. Today the lowest rate is 10%. Those rates seem selected to support your point. For example, you left out that highest rate in 1944 was 94%. There is also quite a bit of historical context that you are omitting. In 1913, without social security, common people in the US were impoverished in old age. The country had little infrastructure. It's not as simple as "taxes only go up".
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I didn't include the 1944 rates because I only wanted to mention the top rate at the time of the adoption/passage of the 16th amendment and the income tax. My point was, at the time, the public was told the rates would be low and only on top earners. Then overtime, the rates rose while the brackets kept expanding downwards to include more and more of the middle and lower class. My point was not 'taxes never go down' but rather, taxes expand to include more and more people, despite originally being told they would not.
  - danans 5y ago
    > taxes expand to include more and more people, despite originally being told they would not. And with them, the country's population, infrastructure, and economy expanded and transformed. Some may argue for the better, others for the worse, but taxes and societal development are intrinsically linked.
- refurb 5y ago
  If their point was taxes start low and go up, you rather proved it didn’t you?
  - danans 5y ago
    My point was not to refute that taxes went up, but rather that they didn't go up in a vacuum. Wars were financed, population and productivity increased by huge amounts, and the entire economy shifted from an agrarian to an industrial one. The country's massive physical, social and and human infrastructure was built, one that the current high standard of living is still largely dependent on. It is highly motivated reasoning to only highlight the tax rate increases without the sweeping societal changes that accompanied them.

danans 5y ago

> The highest rate in 1913 was 7%. Today the lowest rate is 10%. Those rates seem selected to support your point. For example, you left out that highest rate in 1944 was 94%. There is also quite a bit of historical context that you are omitting. In 1913, without social security, common people in the US were impoverished in old age. The country had little infrastructure. It's not as simple as "taxes only go up".

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I didn't include the 1944 rates because I only wanted to mention the top rate at the time of the adoption/passage of the 16th amendment and the income tax. My point was, at the time, the public was told the rates would be low and only on top earners. Then overtime, the rates rose while the brackets kept expanding downwards to include more and more of the middle and lower class. My point was not 'taxes never go down' but rather, taxes expand to include more and more people, despite originally being told they would not.
- danans 5y ago
  > taxes expand to include more and more people, despite originally being told they would not. And with them, the country's population, infrastructure, and economy expanded and transformed. Some may argue for the better, others for the worse, but taxes and societal development are intrinsically linked.
refurb 5y ago
If their point was taxes start low and go up, you rather proved it didn’t you?
- danans 5y ago
  My point was not to refute that taxes went up, but rather that they didn't go up in a vacuum. Wars were financed, population and productivity increased by huge amounts, and the entire economy shifted from an agrarian to an industrial one. The country's massive physical, social and and human infrastructure was built, one that the current high standard of living is still largely dependent on. It is highly motivated reasoning to only highlight the tax rate increases without the sweeping societal changes that accompanied them.