The Income Tax: A Century Of Bigger Government...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
By Ryan Ellis


On February 3, 2013, taxpayers will celebrate a very dubious centennial: the 100th anniversary of the Sixteenth Amendment’s ratification. The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to levy income taxes.

We can derive a couple of lessons from this somber occasion.

First, taxes which are foisted upon us by politicians with the promise that they will only be assessed on “the rich” will eventually fall on much of the population, including the poor.

Second, higher taxes lead to more government spending and even more and higher taxes.

Let’s compare the income tax system of 1913 with today’s system. (All numbers below are indexed to the consumer price index and expressed in today’s dollars.)

When the Revenue Act of 1913 — the first post-Sixteenth Amendment tax bill — was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in October 1913, the top marginal income tax rate was only 7 percent. The top rate kicked in when taxable income exceeded $11.6 million.

Married couples earning less than about $93,000 faced no income taxation whatsoever. If those same exemptions were around now, approximately 90 percent of all families would be totally exempt from the income tax.

Today’s top rate is not 7 percent, but a whopping 39.6 percent. Instead of the top bracket starting at $11.6 million, it begins at $450,000 for married couples. Unless you’re at or near the poverty line, you likely have an income tax liability. That’s a far cry from a limited tax on “the rich.”

Making things worse, Congress created a parallel income tax on wages in the 1930s, ostensibly to pay for Social Security. It was later expanded in the 1960s to pay for part of Medicare. This second income tax manages to capture those few taxpayers that the first one leaves unscathed. Younger workers paying this second income tax on wages long ago gave up much hope of getting any promised benefits when they retire.

Other taxes continued to rise during this period, as well. The corporate income tax rose from a few percentage points in the early twentieth century to 35 percent today, the highest in the developed world. The death tax, another creation of the progressive era’s tax geniuses, now stands at 40 percent, one of the highest rates in the developed world.

The income tax and all other taxes combined collected about $16.6 billion in 1913. In 2013, total tax revenues are expected to reach about $2.7 trillion. Remember, these statistics are in today’s dollars!

This explosion in the tax power of the federal government has been associated with a century-long expansion...

Read more: The income tax: A century of bigger government | The Daily Caller
 
It is probably true that without increased tax revenue the entitlement programs of the modern welfare state could not be paid for and so would not exist, but it is certainly not true that increased taxation as a share of GDP has caused either entitlement programs specifically or the rise of the modern welfare state.

The increasing role of government in the health, education and welfare of its citizens is a result of accelerating technological developments which have caused fundamental changes in our economy, resulting in a restructuring of our society and creating new and increased demands which only government can satisfy.

Conservatives have great difficulty accepting that last sentence. They have an a priori belief that the so-called "free market," can do the job of supplying citizens with education, medical care and financial security better than can the government.

Their problem is that no one believes them. This isn't abstract theory for most people. We didn't turn to government for our needs as a first resort but as a last resort. The historical fact is that the private, for-profit sector, that "free market," did not provide adequate education and training, did not provide adequate medical care for most people and did not produce economic security for the disabled or the old folks. It didn't do so because these activities are not inherently profitable and the prime objective of the "free market" is profit.

Advanced democracies require a flexible balance between public and private sector, a balance adjusted as population and the economy change. The public sector is tax supported by definition. That's just the way it is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top