Well that's false, the income tax in the United States originally was promised only to ever apply to the ultra-rich. Now every tax payer pays it.
Well that's false. In 2018 44% paid no federal income tax.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-...
Source kinda sucks bec its looking at all americans not income earners which is what we're talking about.
But even so as others have said the point stands, originally income tax was only for the uber rich and now a large majority of workers pay it.
Also every single worker pays payroll tax regardless of income level, that's something the article doesn't address.
Sure, it's not fun, but it's not an overwhelming burden for those with a simple 1040.
It's still about 1000x more complicated than filing in New Zealand, which is comparable to filing on the California site. Basically a 15 minute wizard on a web page.
Now, maybe if the wealth tax was combined with a significant reduction in income tax, say 0 tax for the first $100,000 a year people make, then people might be a bit more willing to support the notion. But just a new tax, with the promise it won't impact you? Can't blame people for lacking any trust.
If there was ever a slippery slope it was the slippery slope of cutting more and more taxes for the rich.
I even suggested that lowering taxes on the middle class and below while introducing a new tax on the rich would be the a method to prevent people from being concerned with the tax eventually impacting them. With all the 'tax the rich' rhetoric, why not include a 'and not the poor' as well?
I agree that it's easy to tax people wealthier than you. When it might affect you, there's less support.
In the 50s through 70s, there was a much higher income tax on the upper income brackets: the tax was much more progressive. Ronald Reagan dramatically lowered the income taxes on the high income people and kicked off the dramatic increase in economic inequality that we've seen over the past 50 years. The GOP destroyed much of the promise of the American Dream in this case. Is this what you mean?
From Wikipedia - In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 (equivalent to $12.9 million in 2019 dollars) and a total of $28.3 million was collected.
1 - https://www.mwattorneys.com/blog/first-income-tax-was-suppos...
Compare that to the general income tax today, and who it applies to: the floor now includes ~60% of people with any income at all, and the lowest possible income tax rate is 10%, e.g. 10x higher.
And literally everyone pays income tax in the form of Social Security and Medicare. (For whatever reason, if an income tax is pre-allocated to particular government spending, it's no longer an "income tax" in some people's eyes. The tax effect is identical and you need the 16th Amendment to allow it, so IMO it should be lumped in with the other income taxes we pay.)
This hasn't been true for the income tax [0], nor the capital gains tax [1], nor (at least in Silicon Valley) for real estate taxes[2], which are closest to a wealth tax. It's a reasonable thing to consider, but given the evidence we have, should not be a driving consideration.
[0] https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Capital_Gains_Tax...
[2] https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/decline-in-value/
edit: I was misinformed re: income tax, tracking only the top rate.