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?

Not really proof. Good try though, I admire your thought of what is proof. But without extensive reasearch and footnotes, it is no more valid than what I stated in a less time consuming and believable form.

:har:

Answer any of the questions factually and you have all the proof you need that what you wrote was false.
Its incredible that you would attempt to maintain that your obvious lies were true, unless of course your "American" knowledge of your countries history is so bad that you can't even understand the basics.

Why do we want to bring people, any people, down when it is in everyones interest to bring them up? Is it because it is easier for politicians to promote class warfare than to get out of the way and stop spending money?

Why are you unable to answer any of the points?
Is it because you know you were making up rubbish?
The real funny part is that you took one of the biggest federal expenses which itself was a social provision and ridiculously claimed it didn't occur.

That local education you got must be real bad:rotfl2:
Might I suggest you delete your posts and claim that you are being persecuted for holding an unpopular view.........its all the rage so I hear

Well it doesn't have to be 100% current. We're talking about general, macroeconomic trends over time, so no biggie. I don't totally share your lack of faith in the concept of Reaganomics; it never really was was it really was supposed to be, but for the time being let's look at this chart.

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

I think you already know that you're right about that. IIRC the top 10% account for an inordinate share of the total tax base, and the top 1% are to they as they are to us, but there are more factors at work. Inflation rates, federal expenditures, unfriendly business legislation (we could always pull out The Federal Registrar and see how many tens of thousands of pages were added to that), changes in trade policy, etc. All of that affects the GDP, and government spending, whether the money is there or not, affects it directly as it's part of the calculation. So while there may be a vague correlation, I'd agree that it isn't the only factor, although I suspect we'll differ in opinion upon exactly what is and is not a major factor and why.

Also, something is bugging me about that graph. It shows everyone as paying positive percentiles of income in taxes. While I have no doubt that taxation in total costs everyone, it doesn't cost everyone in the listed categories. There should be some negative taxes in there for the bottom 20%, maybe more. If the graph is based on taxes witheld it would, when cross-referenced with tax burden per bracket, distort the burden borne by about a third of the population. This in turn further renders the aforementioned correlation inaccurate because a greater portion is being paid by the middle and upper income levels with the middle class being responsible for a significant portion of economic demand, especially in a service economy. Most perturbatory.

For the moment, I'm going to check the boards once more before I go to sleep, but I'll pick up on this tommorrow and maybe add some graphs. There's a really good site that allows you to customize and overlay graphs with virtually every type of US economic data you can imagine, but for the life of me I can't find it right now.

Post as mantyn graphs as you wish. People who work are just tired of those who don't. And the politicians who think that is alright. Including the Mr. vacation guy in the White House, Barack Obama.

Or post any graph you so may wish.
Though in your case I would suggest against using any graph supplied from the US govt as they would show that you are lying.
I might also suggest against showing legislation relating to the taxation system of the US federal govt.....but they would also show that you are lying.
I might suggest linking to the US constitution....but that would show that you are lying
The Dept of defense might come to your aid with your claims....if what you said was true instead of false.
Budget office...yous a liar
schools and colleges....yous aliar
library of congress.....yous a liar
Third man.........................yous are shown by your own words, please forgive this dumb mick for pointing it out that your "American history" is really detatched from American history as I am sure that a foriegner pointing out the basic lack of knowledge on your part must really chafe in the under regions.
So .......................
sorry I meant .........................(edited by)

That chart is meaningless.

That is the top RATE, but says nothing at all about what those top earners actually PAID as a rate.

Back in the old days, the rates were very high—but no one actually paid them. That's the secret you forget. When the top marginal rates dropped, the DODGES also dropped. Look at AMT, now, for example.

You post stuff like that, and people who don;t know better think that the rich got some huge tax cut when the marginal rates dropped. they did not. You can see the amount paid by quintile, and it actually has tended UP over time for the top quintile.

Look at John Kerry. The year he ran for president, his effective tax rate was 15% (taxes/income). His marginal rate was 39%. So back in the day, your marginal rate might be 70%, but your effective rate was probably 20-something %. Some family that only makes 500k a year has a marginal rate of 38%, but their effective rate is likely in the high 20s or low 30s.

Using charts like that might imply, for example, that the poor pay a 14% rate. They in fact pay NEGATIVE taxes. Their effective rate turns out to be below zero. What matters is taxes COLLECTED.

Bottom line is that the only people who deserve tax cuts are people who actually PAY. Within that, the people most deserving of cuts are those who pay MORE, specifically those who already subsidize others. Anyone not at least pulling their weight never deserves a cut, IMO.

Well done, its only muppets that pay big tax.
Or arrogant muppets that get caught thinking they are above income tax.
Top earners pay bugger all income tax, thats the way it works. Switch tax to tarrifs and the top spenders who in theory should be picking up the tax bill will financesmuggling and so not only avoid the taxesn they are due but also benefit from business with every other bugger who thinks things are too much.
Income tax originaly only hit the biggest earners, they avoided paying.
Other people were brought into income tax, they picked up the bill of those that avoided paying.
Chasing people who avoided paying meant more expense which means more revenue is needed to chase those who have to pay who didn't used to have to pay.
Its a self feeding cycle.

What you're describing is effective tax rate. It follows much the same pattern. The data is not meaningless and you don't get to discount data without providing your own. :) :

http://www.epi.org/page/-/img/040710-snapshot-final.jpg

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

And seeing as that incomes for top earners have grown exponentially over those of everyone else, asking them to pay more is only fair.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg