3 ms·

The US income tax was originally supposed to be a tax on just the richest, too. These things have a way of scope creeping.

by cheald 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
I can't find any evidence of this: the earliest US income tax was levied for the Civil War, and amounted to a 3% tax on anybody making around $27,000 (in 2022 dollars). That's not a particularly "rich" cutoff. Edit: about $27,000[1]. [1]: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1861?amount=800 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1861?amount=800
- bombcar 4y ago
  I think they're referring to the one that was enabled by the amendment.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Okay. In that case the cutoff was around $80,000 in today's money, which is certainly not poor (but not rich either).
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      The difference in the amount of tax has a big effect on post tax money. If it's 45% (city + state + federal + social security etc.) you'd have to make x * (1 - 45%) = $80K * (1 - 3%), solving for x gives $141K which is a big difference.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Top three percent is fairly rich. > The Revenue Act of 1913 ... established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Not in absolute terms: the fact that 97% of Americans in 1913 made less than $80,000 equivalent per year is more a testament to America (and broadly the world's) staggering poverty relative to our current wealth. Put another way: you can't tax destitute people (at least not for long, and not without losing your head), but can absolutely can tax the average American household in 2021[1]. [1]: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-27...
        bombcar 4y ago
        Weren't substantial percentages of the US still on subsistence farming/bartering at the time? It's hard to income tax a society without much income.
        carlosjobim 4y ago
        Destitute people have always been heavily taxed, since the beginning of civilization. It's called interest on farm loans, rent, work duty, soldier duty, etc.
Nextgrid 4y ago
True, but for everyone except the richest, a tax that’s originally targeting the rich that ends up scope-creeping to include the common man down the line is still better than a tax that targets the common man right from the beginning.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  No, it just acclimates people to their government lying to them. When (or if) they protest new measures, they're gaslit as if their concerns are hyperbolic and that scope creep isn't a thing that happens. Fauci and others admitted to intentionally misleading people. In particular, I'm thinking of when they were trotting out the % of the population that would need to be vaccinated, which crept up from 60% to over 85, before they stopped talking numbers altogether.[0] Now, you've got people who were already predisposed to mistrust authority who will flat-out disbelieve anything that comes out of the CDC, even if the CDC told them the sky was blue. [0] https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445

The US income tax was originally supposed to be a tax on just the richest, too. These things have a way of scope creeping.

by cheald 4y ago

The US income tax was originally supposed to be a tax on just the richest, too. These things have a way of scope creeping.

woodruffw 4y ago

I can't find any evidence of this: the earliest US income tax was levied for the Civil War, and amounted to a 3% tax on anybody making around $27,000 (in 2022 dollars). That's not a particularly "rich" cutoff. Edit: about $27,000[1]. [1]: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1861?amount=800 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1861?amount=800

bombcar 4y ago
I think they're referring to the one that was enabled by the amendment.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Okay. In that case the cutoff was around $80,000 in today's money, which is certainly not poor (but not rich either).
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    The difference in the amount of tax has a big effect on post tax money. If it's 45% (city + state + federal + social security etc.) you'd have to make x * (1 - 45%) = $80K * (1 - 3%), solving for x gives $141K which is a big difference.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Top three percent is fairly rich. > The Revenue Act of 1913 ... established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Not in absolute terms: the fact that 97% of Americans in 1913 made less than $80,000 equivalent per year is more a testament to America (and broadly the world's) staggering poverty relative to our current wealth. Put another way: you can't tax destitute people (at least not for long, and not without losing your head), but can absolutely can tax the average American household in 2021[1]. [1]: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-27...
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Weren't substantial percentages of the US still on subsistence farming/bartering at the time? It's hard to income tax a society without much income.
      - carlosjobim 4y ago
        Destitute people have always been heavily taxed, since the beginning of civilization. It's called interest on farm loans, rent, work duty, soldier duty, etc.

Nextgrid 4y ago

True, but for everyone except the richest, a tax that’s originally targeting the rich that ends up scope-creeping to include the common man down the line is still better than a tax that targets the common man right from the beginning.

zdragnar 4y ago
No, it just acclimates people to their government lying to them. When (or if) they protest new measures, they're gaslit as if their concerns are hyperbolic and that scope creep isn't a thing that happens. Fauci and others admitted to intentionally misleading people. In particular, I'm thinking of when they were trotting out the % of the population that would need to be vaccinated, which crept up from 60% to over 85, before they stopped talking numbers altogether.[0] Now, you've got people who were already predisposed to mistrust authority who will flat-out disbelieve anything that comes out of the CDC, even if the CDC told them the sky was blue. [0] https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445