3 ms·

Read some history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_Sta... “In 1894, Dem

Read some history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_Sta... “In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4,000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. ($4,000 was 19.3 times the 1894 nominal GDP per capita of $207.23; the corresponding income in 2021 is $1.3M.)“

__loam 2y ago
Why are you making an argument using a law from over a century ago?
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  Did the US abolish income tax recently and no one told me?
- DevKoala 2y ago
  Because it is one of the key examples of how taxes trickle down. Also, do you see those old tax rates? People love to make comparisons about how housing was affordable half a century ago, then check out the tax rates, that’s partly why. We are at absurd tax rates and all because the government doesn’t make any effort to control their spending. Rich individuals who are born into money will always find ways to escape these taxes, but your average person who built their wealth will not and in a decade when they hit the middle class, they will just contribute to extending the wealth gap.
  - __loam 2y ago
    Call me crazy but I don't exactly have a ton of sympathy for temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The statement that we somehow have absurd tax rates now is completely inconsistent with the reality that taxes have been trending down for decades, punctuated by tax cuts that were made in the last decade. If you're worried about government spending and government debt, and you probably should take a macroeconomics class and realize you shouldn't be, then you ought to be in favor of reforming our codes to ensure the rich are paying a fair rate given that they benefit hugely from being in a country with developed infrastructure, a highly educated workforce, and a military that ensures global stability and unmolested shipping. Bringing up tax codes from before 1900 is just an absurd way to start a discussion about this because we've had over a century of development in monetary policy and taxation since then.
  - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    So it took 130 years to go from 10% to 70% - given this is starting around .1% we will have like 400 years before it is ubiquitous? I am willing to take that risk.
- prewett 2y ago
  How else are you going to find evidence of a slow-moving phenomenon? Besides, has human nature changed in the last 150 years? If the assertion is (for example) "taxation on the rich tends to end up including middle-class and maybe lower", why would an example from Rome or medieval Europe not be applicable?
  - __loam 2y ago
    Weirdly enough I actually had to write a college paper on the tax policy of the late Byzantine Empire. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, Roman land became increasingly consolidated under a few influential families, who used their influence to pay less taxes. This weakened the state and left it vulnerable to the fourth crusade and eventually the fall to the Turks. Back to here, I don't think tax policy from the 1800s is especially relevant because the United States has gone through extensive reform with respect to monetary and economic policy since that time. The fed didn't exist and we were still on the gold standard. It's weird to use an obscure law nobody has every heard of to argue against taxing a class of wealthy Americans that are paying historically low tax rates.
    - someguydave 2y ago
      This thread is about how taxes with small rates applied only to the rich have a historically documented tendency to grow in scope and rate, and that therefore it is legitimate for all potential taxpayers to worry about a new kind of tax, no matter how tightly scoped and low in rate in initial proposals

__loam 2y ago

Why are you making an argument using a law from over a century ago?

sickofparadox 2y ago
Did the US abolish income tax recently and no one told me?
DevKoala 2y ago
Because it is one of the key examples of how taxes trickle down. Also, do you see those old tax rates? People love to make comparisons about how housing was affordable half a century ago, then check out the tax rates, that’s partly why. We are at absurd tax rates and all because the government doesn’t make any effort to control their spending. Rich individuals who are born into money will always find ways to escape these taxes, but your average person who built their wealth will not and in a decade when they hit the middle class, they will just contribute to extending the wealth gap.
- __loam 2y ago
  Call me crazy but I don't exactly have a ton of sympathy for temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The statement that we somehow have absurd tax rates now is completely inconsistent with the reality that taxes have been trending down for decades, punctuated by tax cuts that were made in the last decade. If you're worried about government spending and government debt, and you probably should take a macroeconomics class and realize you shouldn't be, then you ought to be in favor of reforming our codes to ensure the rich are paying a fair rate given that they benefit hugely from being in a country with developed infrastructure, a highly educated workforce, and a military that ensures global stability and unmolested shipping. Bringing up tax codes from before 1900 is just an absurd way to start a discussion about this because we've had over a century of development in monetary policy and taxation since then.
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  So it took 130 years to go from 10% to 70% - given this is starting around .1% we will have like 400 years before it is ubiquitous? I am willing to take that risk.
prewett 2y ago
How else are you going to find evidence of a slow-moving phenomenon? Besides, has human nature changed in the last 150 years? If the assertion is (for example) "taxation on the rich tends to end up including middle-class and maybe lower", why would an example from Rome or medieval Europe not be applicable?
- __loam 2y ago
  Weirdly enough I actually had to write a college paper on the tax policy of the late Byzantine Empire. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, Roman land became increasingly consolidated under a few influential families, who used their influence to pay less taxes. This weakened the state and left it vulnerable to the fourth crusade and eventually the fall to the Turks. Back to here, I don't think tax policy from the 1800s is especially relevant because the United States has gone through extensive reform with respect to monetary and economic policy since that time. The fed didn't exist and we were still on the gold standard. It's weird to use an obscure law nobody has every heard of to argue against taxing a class of wealthy Americans that are paying historically low tax rates.
  - someguydave 2y ago
    This thread is about how taxes with small rates applied only to the rich have a historically documented tendency to grow in scope and rate, and that therefore it is legitimate for all potential taxpayers to worry about a new kind of tax, no matter how tightly scoped and low in rate in initial proposals