This Tax Week, Remember That the Federal Income Tax Is Relatively New
There are many pervasive myths about the U.S. tax code. Here are a few.

Another Tax Day has come and gone, and most Americans believe they pay too much. One recent poll revealed that 56 percent say they pay more than their fair share. Unfortunately, I fear this is just the beginning considering the insane level of debt Washington policymakers have accumulated over the years. With this in mind, here are some important facts about our tax system that you might not know.
The payroll tax is the heaviest burden for most taxpaying Americans, but the income tax is more visible and painful to a lot of people. While we are accustomed to it—and while it affects some Americans' decisions about how much to work, invest, or save—the income tax didn't exist for most of our country's life.
In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled against a direct tax on the incomes of American citizens and corporations, something that had been included in the previous year's Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The court found that such a tax violated the constitutional requirement that tax apportionments among the states be based on population. It took a constitutional amendment—the 16th—to eventually change that and pave the way for the modern income tax.
The very first Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, introduced in 1913 after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, was remarkably straightforward compared to what we know today. It was only four pages long, including instructions, and the top tax rate was 7 percent on incomes above $500,000, which is over $15 million in today's dollars. Some people were horrified by a 7 percent tax and warned that it could put us on a slippery slope to higher rates—maybe even above 10 percent (!)—imposed on a vast majority of people. They were called crazy for fearing such a thing.
And yet, as predicted by a few realists, the income tax rate not only increased, but the threshold at which it's applied went down. During the 1950s and the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate on incomes reached 91 percent for individuals. This rate applied to incomes over $200,000 (about $2 million today) for single filers and $400,000 (about $4 million today) for married couples filing jointly. These high taxes were part of a broader policy to manage post-war fiscal adjustments and fund federal programs. These rates also failed to raise as much money as you would think due to many loopholes in the tax code.
While the top marginal rate is much lower today, the income tax code remains remarkably complicated. Will McBride, a scholar at the Tax Foundation, recently wrote that "as of 2021, the U.S. income tax code was 4.3 million words long and growing. That's much longer, and presumably much more complicated, than tax codes found in other countries." There are several reasons for this.
First, many welfare programs are administered through the tax code. In recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards wrote, "The tax code is an increasing mess. The number of official tax expenditures has risen from 53 in 1970 to 205 today, making IRS administration and enforcement ever more difficult. We know from experience that complex tax expenditures, such as the low-income housing tax credit and earned income tax credit, generate substantial errors and abuse."
In addition, contrary to common belief, the U.S. income tax system is actually quite progressive. According to the Tax Foundation, "though the top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19.7 percent of total adjusted gross income, they pay 37.3 percent of all income taxes. Just 3 percent of taxes are paid by the lowest half of income earners." Maintaining this progressivity through all kinds of tax provisions increases the complexity of the code.
This progressivity is generally ignored by those who argue that taxing the rich is the solution to reducing the burgeoning U.S. national debt. Soaking the rich, while perhaps appealing in its simplicity, misses the scale of the problem. Brian Riedl, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, noted that if we were to confiscate 100 percent of the income of everyone making over $500,000 per year, it would fund the government for less than a year. This puts into perspective the enormity of the $34 trillion national debt versus the income of the rich.
Taxing the rich is a convenient distraction hiding the reality that if spending isn't cut, taxes will have to be raised on everyone, a lot. On this tax week, I suggest Congress starts cutting.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I need to stop paying these federal taxes. I do not want to be charged with collusion/RICO laws by associating with the US federal government. There are more innocent people in prison than Congress .
Good way to have free room and board in a federal prison. I personally have known people who had your attitude and ended up there.
Did you rat them out, chuckie? You seem like a little bitch.
I once added up the reported wealth of the Fortune 500 or something similar; it was truly enlightening how little of the national debt it would have paid, and of course that wealth is almost all tied up in stocks. A 100% wealth tax would in effect nationalize industry and destroy the economy for no financial gain, since all the people who could afford to buy would be trying to sell, stock prices would tank, and pension funds, insurance companies, and everyone with any investments would find them worthless.
Looks like commenting is sometimes SNAFU again. Some "Reply" comments end up as replies, some show up a new top level comments.
Well, pay the damn membership fee and they can hire some ex-journalists who learned to code to fix the problems.
(and just for the record, this was created as a reply)
I thought it was ex coal miners who learned to code.
I wrote this way back in 2011.
In the last year for which data is available, 2008, the highest marginal tax rate was 35%. This rate is paid on AGI above $357,700. Certainly someone with AGI over that value is in the well-to-do category, but may not be “millionaires and billionaires” (but this is immaterial to my point). According to the IRS, the number of returns that were in this highest marginal rate was 971,510. So there’s nearly a million households in this country that are, at least by the IRS bracket definition, “rich”. Not too shabby, it seems the USA is indeed the land of opportunity.
According to the IRS, the cumulative amount of AGI subjected to this highest rate was $622,765,389,000, so let’s round up to $622.8B. The taxes generate on this money is therefore $218B (the IRS reported $217,967,886,000).
Let’s assume for a moment (no matter how unrealistic the assumption is) that no one affected would change a lick of their income-generating behavior as a result if we raised the top marginal rate to 100%. How much revenue would that generate? Why, all of $622.8B, if no one modified their behavior in any way that affected their income and tax impact. That is, it would generate an additional $404.8B in revenue relative to the current 35% bracket.
If you added that $404B to the revenue pot, our deficit this year would still be over $1T…
Don't tell the nutty far left. They won't be able to handle it. They are as allergic to facts as any MAGA cult member is.
The nutty far left knows this. They aren’t interested in paying any debts. They’re just resentful, ugly little bitches.
Fewer than a million households in a country of 350 million people count as "truly well off"? I'm not sure that actually *is* an advertisement for the "land of opportunity"... :-/
The + IRS = Theirs
Pretty sure that concept has been copyrighted by Biden.
Cry more about how Trump is being treated unfairly. I'll wipe away the tears.
Yup. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.
Take what? Ohhhhhhh, you’re implying that I’m defending Biden. Fuck Biden. He’s a walking skeleton with dementia and I can’t think of a single policy of his that I support. How’s that for a defense? Disdain for Trump does not equal defense of Biden. Idiot.
It might have something to do with your response? He criticized the current admin, which of course does not imply that he is pushing for Trump, unless I missed that in his post.
You then responded bringing up a non sequitur about Trump.
He brought up Biden when talking about taxes, you come out of nowhere bringing up Trump? You don't see that as 'defending' Biden? Its what it looks like to an outside observer for sure.
I laugh every time the retirement planning commercials tell us that our current tax rate is 'historically low'.
Don't laugh, the 2017 tax cuts was not permanent and rates rise after December 2025. That is why advisors are telling people to make decisions now.
In the future these taxes will be historically low
It is true that progressives talk about taxing the rich, but conservatives talk about taxing the poor complaining that large percentage pay no income tax at all. Both are true because while cutting tax rate on wealthiest Congress was also raising the amount for the first dollar taxed. The result is taxes fall on a narrower group and are not enough to cover expenses.
One thing Trump and Biden can agree on is that poor people aren't paying enough taxes on imports.
Sad but true. Those tariffs contribute to inflation.
I hate taxes, but I hate tax cheaters almost as much. Not tax avoiders--they're playing by the rules.
The IRS will be going after small employers who fail to “Keep [and report] a daily tip record using Form 4070A, Employee’s Daily Record of Tips” and/or fail to “Report all tips on an individual income tax return, Form 4137, Social Security and Medicare Tax on Unreported Tip Income”. Wait staff earning cash tips cheat on their taxes to the tune of about $20-30B each year, and the IRS has been unhappy with their ability to go after these people due to lack of resources. 87,000 new agents will certainly give them some new resources.
I'm looking forward to seeing waitresses dragged from their places of employment by armed agents for failing to pay taxes on her cash tips. I hope they show on CNN the artist selling caricatures on the boardwalk for $20 cash get hauled away. Holding my breath until I can see the super-couponers who arbitrage their wares on Ebay get their doors kicked in. When the illegal aliens file their fraudulent EITC claims, I hope they are arrested and put under the jail for a few years before they get deported. When small business owners or anyone else cheat on their taxes, they cheat us all, so going after them full-bore is a positive action. If, somehow, they also manage to find some millionaires and billionaires who actually cheated on their taxes, why, that's a huge bonus too!
It's not that I'm pleased that waitresses will be targeted, but I hope that once people like waitresses and etsy artists are run through the tax code wringer, that maybe just maybe, they'll see the light and their potential hypocrisy in calling for the heads of rich tax avoiders playing by the rules when they are themselves actual tax evaders breaking the law (and often thinking they are entitled to break the law, indeed, they flaunt their lawlessness).
My issue with forcing servers to pay taxes on all their tips is that if they're any good at their job the taxes will be more than their hourly wage. As a result they could owe lots of money at the end of the year, which would be awful since many people in that line of work are students and single parents who are just barely getting by. I understand that it's not fair that they avoid taxes, but as a practical matter making them pay could completely ruin their lives.
"it’s not fair that they avoid taxes"
No, not paying taxes on your tips as required by law is EVADING taxes, not avoiding them.
"taxes will be more than their hourly wage"
Their hourly wage is the sum of their employer-paid compensation and their tip income. That's how the law says it works. It may indeed be a bad law, but don't equivocate: they are cheating on their taxes.
No. Their hourly wage is what they are paid by their employer. Tips are not wages.
Servers are typically paid half of minimum wage. To make the numbers easy let’s say minimum is ten, so they’re paid five.
The person works a double, lunch and dinner, for ten hours. So their wages are fifty bucks, and let's say they made $250 in tips. That means they owe taxes on $300. If they are taxed 20%, that’s $60. But they’re only going to get $50 on their paycheck. So for that day they owe ten bucks. Times two hundred days and they owe two grand at the end of the year. That’s two grand that I can guarantee they don’t have in the bank.
When I was a server my paychecks were always zero. I didn’t owe at the end of the year because the employers did a little mojo to be sure my paychecks weren’t negative due to taxes. If they didn't I'd have been fucked, as well as finding a different line of work to pay the bills while taking college classes.
So you cheated on your taxes. Good to know that we can add that to your list.
And tips *are* wages under the law...even if they are not wages, they are most certainly income under the tax code.
The FLSA permits an employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage and overtime obligation(s) for tipped employees per Section 3(m)(2)(A). An employer that claims a tip credit must ensure that the employee receives enough tips from customers, and direct (or cash) wages per workweek to equal at least the minimum wage and overtime compensation required under the FLSA.
An employer must pay a tipped worker at least $2.13 per hour under the FLSA. An employer can take an FLSA tip credit equal to the difference between the direct wage, or the cash wage it pays directly to the tipped employee, and the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour. The maximum tip credit that an employer can currently claim is $5.12 per hour: ($7.25 - $2.13 direct (or cash) wage = $5.12). Only tips actually received by the employee count when determining whether the employee is a tipped employee and in applying the tip credit.
Employers claiming a tip credit must be able to show in each workweek that tipped employees receive at least the full federal minimum wage when direct (or cash) wages and the tip credit amount are combined. If an employee’s tips combined with the employer’s direct (or cash) wages do not equal the minimum hourly wage of $7.25 per hour in each workweek, the employer must make up the difference.
Sarcasmic, You ghave some of the most interesting tax logic I have seen.
I'm not getting paid any wage by an employer since I am not employed. I presume you would say then that my taxes would zero as a result.
I do make quite a lot off of investments, but I could arrange to spend it all or at least guarantee that I don't have any of it it in the bank at the end of the year. I'm nor completely clear on this part of your discussion. Is the fact that the money is not in the bank a required condition for not paying income taxes, or is is sufficient that my wages are zero?
Most servers share their tips with other members of the staff like table cleaners and the dish washers etc. how do you keep track of all that the paper work would be thru the roof and time not well spent.
When I was a server I’d tip out the bussers and the bartender. Dishwasher don’t get anything but grief.
Which doesn't mean that paperwork isn't the law.
I love tax cheats. Any dollar that they spend is spent better than any dollar spent by the feds. I only tip waiters and waitresses in cash so that they can decide whether on not to report. Personally, I hope they don't. Since I put a second, very small tip, on the credit card, they are covered.
Same here. OTOH, I feel rather different about someone making millions a year who cheats, and not just when his name is Hunter Biden.
Conservatives are full of crap about the poor not paying taxes. They forget about Social Security and Medicare taxes. This accounts for 37% of all federal revenue. Personal income taxes account for 50%. The rest is corporate income and excise taxes.
A person making the tax limit of around $160,000 dollars is paying the highest overall tax rate when you keep in mind the fact that that person is paying both ends of SS and Medicare. The claim that the employer is paying half is a lie invented by the Roosevelt administration to hide the actual source of the money paid to the feds.
Not to mention property taxes, which in many places force people on fixed incomes out of their homes.
Complex tax code is also in the interest of Intuit and similar companies, not to mention the CPAs of the country.
Complex tax code is also a direct result of taxing "income". Are gifts income? If not, people might conspire with their employer to give them "gifts" instead of wages. Now rules are needed to prevent that. Are fringe benefits "income"? If not, people will try to get their employers to pay for everything from gym memberships to housing costs as employment benefits. Now we need rules to prevent that.
Want to use the tax code to "nudge" behaviors instead of just get revenue? Need rules.
Want to use the tax code to distribute welfare? Need rules.
And so on.
"Taxing the rich is a convenient distraction hiding the reality that if spending isn't cut, taxes will have to be raised on everyone, a lot."
In my opinion this still understates the scale of the problem. It is at this point impossible to raise taxes enough to make spending cuts unnecessary.
As a corollary to this comment, I would like to say that it is impossible to cut spending to meet the current level of funding. Both spending cuts and tax hikes are needed.
The revenue we have today was sufficient to cover the spending of about 5 years ago...this pattern is broken a bit by COVID stimulus, but holds up pretty well. You're saying we can't possibly live with the spending we had just a few years ago?
Receipts Outlays 5-year lag Receipts
1990 1,031,958 1,252,993 1995 1,351,790
1991 1,054,988 1,324,226 1996 1,453,053
1992 1,091,208 1,381,529 1997 1,579,232
1993 1,154,334 1,409,386 1998 1,721,728
1994 1,258,566 1,461,752 1999 1,827,452
1995 1,351,790 1,515,742 2000 2,025,191
1996 1,453,053 1,560,484 2001 1,991,082
1997 1,579,232 1,601,116 2002 1,853,136
1998 1,721,728 1,652,458 2003 1,782,314
1999 1,827,452 1,701,842 2004 1,880,114
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 2005 2,153,611
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 2006 2,406,869
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 2007 2,567,985
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 2008 2,523,991
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 2009 2,104,989
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 2010 2,162,706
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 2011 2,303,466
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 2012 2,449,990
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 2013 2,775,106
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 2014 3,021,491
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079 2015 3,249,890
2011 2,303,466 3,603,065 2016 3,267,965
2012 2,449,990 3,526,563 2017 3,316,184
2013 2,775,106 3,454,881 2018 3,329,907
2014 3,021,491 3,506,284 2019 3,463,364
2015 3,249,890 3,691,850 2020 3,421,164
2016 3,267,965 3,852,615 2021 4,047,111
2017 3,316,184 3,981,634 2022 4,897,339
2018 3,329,907 4,108,981 2023 4,440,947
Well that table format didn't work very well.
"...the income tax didn't exist for most of our country's life."
This is true.
The US achieved its highest economic growth from 1865 to about 1915...before the income tax.
Now we are trillions of dollars in debt because both parties feast at the public trough, spending recklessly and demand more, more, more as they expand the US government, try to get us into wars, waste money on needless, useless and expensive bureaucracies America does not need or want, and spend even more on entitlement programs to keep as many people on Uncle Sam's plantation.
Is it too late to cut the cord?
I don't know, but if the reckless spending does not stop, the US will go the way of the old Soviet Union soon.
Never underestimate the amount of greed that can grow from legal 'armed-theft'. There's no check-and-balances (earning versus stealing) so there is no incentive to limit that greed. Precisely why the US Constitution LIMITED government.
That highest economic growth was fueled largely by the largest immigration the US has ever had. Don't tell the MAGA cult.
Lol. Landscapers ain’t gettin us outta this.
Don’t tell chuckie he’s living in the past, as progs will do.
Sensible people might actually wonder why it is that these massive immigration miracles could only happen on someone else's greener pasture. Never-mind the Great Depression and Nazi-Empire building that followed. I guess all the immigrants left again before that nightmare that followed?
Maybe the sensible answer is the invading grazers found someone else's super-greener pasture and came to eat-it-up dry before moving onto their next greener pasture?
I forget the excuse used. Are they immigrating to make a better life for themselves or to make life better for the natives?
Statistically 3/4 of immigrants think their invasion onto others pasture is suppose to be a gift. The other 1/4 are literally trying to run away from that 3/4's arrogant self-entitlement that killed their own pasture.
“The payroll tax is the heaviest burden for most taxpaying Americans, but the income tax is more visible and painful”
Don’t forget to add inflation. It’s not some mystical disease that nature just throws out. It’s directly caused by government spending and it amounts to more cost (hidden) than one’s own purchased tractor (i.e. You can’t wear out a JD4020 faster than the government wears out your money).
Don’t completely throw out all that other grift like sales tax, use tax, sin tax, energy tax, property tax. When added all together I’d estimate a good 75%-90% of the labor citizens do gets STOLEN by ‘Gov-Guns’. What was suppose to ensure Liberty and Justice has instead became the biggest plantation owner of slaves.
And the 'slaves' mentality is in the details. Asking the plantation owners to provide shelter, food and healthcare. Democrats have and apparently will always be the party of slavery.
Fix the tax laws:
1. Abolish the corporate tax entirely.
2. Tax all income, no matter how it is derived, (wages, profit, dividends and realized capital gains) at the same rate.
3. End all deductions and exemptions.
4. Combine social security and income taxes into one tax.
5. Lower all overall rates.
6. Make all rates proportional to spending. When spending goes up, all rates rise. Everyone has skin in the spending game.
Will these happen? Not a chance in the foreseeable future, but it should be kept in mind as a guide.
...or UN-Constitutional spending is an act of 'armed-theft' and a direct route to jail for treason against the USA.
2. Tax all income, no matter how it is derived, (wages, profit, dividends and realized capital gains) at the same rate.
Does, Granny's birthday card with $50 to Johnny reflect income to Johnny? Does Granny need to provide a 1099MISC to Johnny? If not, why not? What if Granny hands Johnny $10K? Can you define what kinds of gifts (how big is too big)? Would wedding presents need to be treated as gifts-in-kind and require the bride and groom to add up the value of all cash and non-cash gifts and get 1099MISC from their reception guests? Why not? Can define a "gift" such that it distinguishes between "real" gifts and fraudulent gifts, such as getting my employer to give me a large "gift" instead of wages?
If my house burns down and my insurance company pays me $250,000 to rebuild it, is that income?
How about if I win $1000 on a scratch-off lottery ticket? What if I spent $5000 buying the tickets?
If I loan my brother $10k and he pays me back, is that income or is only the amount of interest he might pay income? If I figure out he's a deadbeat and is never going to pay me back can I write off that loan? Do I need to submit it to the IRS as income to him?
If my wife dies and leaves me her estate and I don't live in a community-property state, is that all income I need to pay taxes on? If I live in a community-property state do I get to not pay taxes on it? How much of the money in our joint checking account is part of her estate that I'll get taxed on? What if I can prove it was always my money (e.g., she had no job and no source of income)?
The concept of a "flat tax on all income no matter the source" may not remove all that much complexity.
1. Abolish the corporate tax entirely.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the
corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
[I wrote this about a dozen years ago so the numbers are not current, but the point remains the same.]
Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations almost as much or maybe slightly more to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons.
And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders.
And almost every bit of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.
Another number worth noting is the annual shortfall in collections from individuals, which is, coincidentally, also estimated at $250-$300B per year. Focus the IRS on the missing $300B in uncollected individual taxes and you pretty much offset the corporate tax revenues (assuming they were eliminated).
Clearly eliminating the corporate income tax would provide a needed shot in the arm to the economy, as it would free up something like $500-600B annually (taxes plus compliance costs) and would make the USA a very attractive place to HQ businesses in. It would probably keep some jobs from being shipped overseas too, by lowering the cost of doing business in the US relative to elsewhere.
You are basically correct on the corporate income tax. But we would have to admit that corporations aren't people. The Supreme Court thinks that they are.
"Tax all income, no matter how it is derived, (wages, profit, dividends and realized capital gains) at the same rate." Are you going to deduct that part of capital gains that is from inflation? Otherwise, not only are you taxing long-term investments at a much higher rate, but you are allowing government to profit from robbing investors by creating inflation.
"$500,000, which is over $15 million in today's dollars."
But it's all profit!
The 1910's, on balance, were a complete disaster for the United States. They placed us on a track that has lead us to this complete travi-sham-ockery on the Potomac.
I have never in my life been as pessimistic as I am right now. I don't see how we pull back from the brink.
That's when the progressives took over and began building the administrative state. For them unaccountable bureaucrats making all the rules is a feature, not a bug.
When Congress makes the rules, it is even worse.
The income tax was a humongous victory for the opponents of corporate welfare and a humongous loss for robber barons. The reason is that the same law that created the income tax enacted a massive cut in tariffs. Since 1790 the single biggest activity in Congress had been to decide which industry got to get "protection" from competition and which lost out. As one can imagine, bribery and vote buying were quite common. There was too much at stake. And the tariffs kept prices high for those who could least afford them.
The current tax code is a disaster but nothing like the tariff situation prior to 1913.
...bribery and vote buying ?were? quite common? LMAO...
That's a joke right? What is it today? All fixed up by the worse is better theory?
^THIS.
Ref: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Introduced by Carter Glass (D-VA).
House Vote [D] Y:247 N:3 to [R] Y:33 N:81
Senate Vote [D] Y:47 N:0 to [R] Y:7 N:34
Signed by Woodrow Wilson [D]
Yet another ?grand-success? of a Democratic-Trifecta.