Taxes were not greater. Taxes as a function of GDP have remained relatively constant in recent years, and were in fact far LOWER during that period. US government outlays used to be about 1/3 of what they are now as a function of GDP.

In the 1930s, for example, the high for US government spending was ~10% of GDP. Tax receipts were considerably lower then, too, on the order of 5-7% of GDP (the rest being deficit spending). After WW2 (where spending was more than double receipts), things stabilized and the receipts vs expenditures have been relatively constant since then at ~20% of GDP (receipts generally slightly lower than expenses, but over time it's real money).

Except that doesn't happen.

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_gdp.gif

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_inc.gif

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_wage.gif

The correlation between taxes and GDP or income growth rate is just not there.

Apparently the correlation between top income tax rate and GDP growth isn't there, but that's not what I was arguing for and anything beyond a very vague correlation wouldn't make much sense, anyway. For the record, though, I would cut it; 10% income tax for everybody, no corporate taxes, 1% capital gains tax, no property tax, no social security tax, low sales tax, and low universal tariffs. No price controls or subsidies, either.

The government does not need to raise the tax rate, all they need, and in my opinion should, do is cut deductions.

I have never seen the logic in setting high tax rates and then allowing myriad deductions. How about lowering the tax rate and getting rid of the deductions.

Deductions only seem to benefit those who can afford tax attorneys and have access to "alternative" tax shelters.

How much of the IRS budget is spent dealing with tax deduction issues?

So no, I don't get worried if the rich have their tax rates increased from 36% to 39%, they have access to tax attorneys and have myriad ways of sheltering their money to the point they may be paying less in taxes than I do as a working slug. And in in the end, they are still rich.

It's meant more of a refutation of the trickle down, supply side, Reaganomics nonsense. But the idea still stands when you consider average taxes across all brackets as we can see from the chart below. Sure, it's only through 2004 but it's close enough for casual discussion.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/...axes_graph.gif

Looking at that chart, I'll bet there's an interesting correlation between size of the federal deficit and tax rate for the top earning 0.01% of taxpayers. There's other factors at work there, so it's not as simplistic as that comparison would imply, but I bet there's something to it.

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax. Federal spending was at or less than 3% of GDP, there were no social programs to catch the failing. How ever did the US survive?

VERY harshly if you recall. Nothing to help the weak or poorest survive. Doing good was far more reliant on who you knew than your potential.

And how pray tell how would you/I recall that? Are you saying you were born some time between 1787 and 1920, or are you just thinking it would have been harder to suck off others back then? Which is what it is really about.

Really?
Are you sure?
Even though government social programs started straight after the revolution?

So it raises the question, was any of those 3 things you claimed actually true?

Absolutely. The soldiers of the civil war marched on Washington to get their pensions. Many were killed and none recieved their pensions.

The 16th amendment which authorized the personal income tax went into effect in 1920.

Leave US history to the Americans. The Irish, by the way arrived in numbers in 1840 and recieved no exceptional treatment and yet we have a large irish population in the US who didn't die for lack of government intervention.

Then why was the 16th amaendment necessary? Doesn't add up does it? And why are these folks mentioned The Socialist Labor Party

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Yet you just made 3 false claims about US history and when challenged on it added another falsehood

Prove it. No wiki,

OK leaving aside the income taxes from the civil war era we can move on to the first peacetime income tax which was later ruled against which led to an amendment as tarriffs were insufficient to pay the mounting debt so was form 1040 introduced by the IRS before 1920?
While we are at debt that other false claim you madecan be dealt with easily by two simple questions. If govt debt was mounting a $2 million a day in the 1860s how can spending have been less than 3% of GDP, after the huge reduction in spending followed by a increase again for the spanish mess and another reduction how is the 7% figure 3 years befroe the amendement magicly less than the 3% you claim existed.
The third false claim you made was about social provisions, in what year did the revolutionaries create the first nationwide social provision for health and support which was deemed vital for the interests of trade and for the security of the country?

As you put in another fal;se claim in you next post could you answer the simple question of which year were the federal civil war pensions amended so that simple old age was counted for payment as the same as a disability during service?
While you are at it can you say how many days service people had to have to be eligable for the pension you claim no one got?