>The state will, as always, become reliant on it and find ways to expand it to wield more power and pay debts that were taken on to “collect/spend in advance” as they’ve done countless times.
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.
Every tax payer pays at a minimum their time and stress to file the paperwork, many don't realize that best effort is probably good enough for them, those who are fortunate can spend $150 to a leech of a lying, scheming company to reduce that burden.
The notion that the time and stress involved with the paperwork is onerous enough to merit being considered payment seems tenuous to me. The gov't has been pushing (as hard as it can) free file services for all of the years that I've been doing taxes. Using those free file options, I--a standard W-2 worker who doesn't make much--complete my taxes in about 15 minutes these days. The companies that convince people to pay them to do that tiny amount for paperwork are also working to hide how ridiculously quick and stress-free it is for one of those 44% to do their taxes.
That's a bit of an over generalization. It gets more tedious for people with multiple jobs, investments, a business, etc. Not to mention, many places also require state and local tax paperwork. The companies that charge money, including TurboTax, lobby to keep the tax codes complex so they can keep charging people money.
I don't stress out over my taxes anymore, but just about everyone else I know does. Of say the 100 closes people you know, how many of them file on the last day, how many people ask for extensions, how many people give up and hire someone to do it for them? That alone should speak volumes.
That's because of corrupt American politicians and lobbying by Intuit, not something inherent to an income tax. Many countries have a simpler income tax process.
Google "free tax file". It's the top hit. I think it's also on your W2's your employer gives you. I'm not sure if it could be made easier, but open to suggestions.
Used to be hidden and had disclaimers that it couldn't be used if income was over 50k or something ridiculous, making it unusable in CA.
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.
Hourly employees pay it too and because it is a withholding tax, you pay for it even if you are below the standard deduction and don't file a tax return because it is automatically taken out of your paycheck by your employer when you get paid. Self employed people also have to pay both sides of it and they have to file if their income is above $400 a year so the only way your really getting out of it is if your employer is paying you under the table or you are self employed and made less than $400.
It still shows the point clearly enough, as 56% isn't the ultra rich. People who fear a wealth tax doing the same already have precedent.
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.
It's ironic how now everyone is bringing out the slippery slope arguments, after years and years of tax cuts for the rich reduced social services and increasing wealth inequality, all based on the promise that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit the average person. Well that was a lie, after several decades of increasing efficiency and economic growth the middle class can look back at essentially at no increase in wealth and the only reason that household disposible income has somwhat increased is because now both adults in the family are working (+plus often high school and college kids are working large proportions as well).
If there was ever a slippery slope it was the slippery slope of cutting more and more taxes for the rich.
Well given those taxes are passed on to the middle class, and the fear is that a new tax will also be passed on to a middle class, I don't see any irony.
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 suppose everyone's definition of ultra-rich is different. There are many people who feel that earning $60k/year is unattainable in their lifetime. For them, the income tax rates (and proposed wealth tax rates) probably seem too low.
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?
It was supposed to be a temporary tax to fund the Civil War, but like most/all taxes, the "temporary" became permanent. (1)
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.
I don't know what was promised, or by who, but the first federal income tax after passage of the 16th amendment applied to only the richest 3% of the population.
Only 3% of the nation had any income above $3K, and they only paid a 1% (!) tax on the income above that threshold. That's how it was sold to the public.
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.)
Others have already pointed this out, but you're ignoring Social Security and Medicare which are both income taxes, just pre-allocated to specific government spending programs. 100% of tax payers pay these income taxes, including the self-employed.
Your graphic only goes to 2009. Note that long-term capital gains moved up from ~15% to ~24% under Obama, and Biden has another plan to increase it[0].
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.