When the income tax started, it was supposed to only apply to the wealthy. Roughly 100 years later, Warren Buffet infamously said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. So much for that.
There’s very little reason to believe a wealth tax would be any different.
That’s the civil war tax. The accuracy of today’s government inflation statistics are contested, for example see ShadowStats as an alternative (although it doesn’t go back to the civil war). Per the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the average hourly pay rate was $0.098 per hour in 1860. Assuming 40 hours of work a week and 52 weeks per year, that equates to about $200 per year, which means $800 was four times average yearly wages.
Today’s average yearly wage is somewhere around $60,000 per year. Multiply that by 4 and you’re at $240,000. I’m not sure I’d characterize that as rich, but it’s certainly upper middle class.
My point is that your inflation statistic of $800 in the 1860s being equivalent to $28,000 in today’s dollars is not particularly believable.
Then run the numbers on a 60-hour workweek, which ups the yearly wage to $300, making $800 more than two and a half times the average wage. $28K in today’s dollars is still way too low to be believable.
I’m reminded of the Architects phrase from The Matrix, “Denial is the most predictable of human responses.”
I never said you were in denial, I said I was reminded of that phrase. The unreliability of government inflation statistics is well known. Shadowing Reality by John Williams explains it well enough. He claims its a bipartisan effort which reduces fiscal expenses by manipulating the CPI.
When the income tax started, it was supposed to only apply to the wealthy. Roughly 100 years later, Warren Buffet infamously said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. So much for that.
There’s very little reason to believe a wealth tax would be any different.
The first income tax was 3% on income over $800, or about $28k today. That isn’t a tax on only the wealthy.
That’s the civil war tax. The accuracy of today’s government inflation statistics are contested, for example see ShadowStats as an alternative (although it doesn’t go back to the civil war). Per the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the average hourly pay rate was $0.098 per hour in 1860. Assuming 40 hours of work a week and 52 weeks per year, that equates to about $200 per year, which means $800 was four times average yearly wages.
Today’s average yearly wage is somewhere around $60,000 per year. Multiply that by 4 and you’re at $240,000. I’m not sure I’d characterize that as rich, but it’s certainly upper middle class.
My point is that your inflation statistic of $800 in the 1860s being equivalent to $28,000 in today’s dollars is not particularly believable.
40 hour workweek didn’t really begin until 1940 so the average yearly wage based upon that isn’t likely a good estimate.
Then run the numbers on a 60-hour workweek, which ups the yearly wage to $300, making $800 more than two and a half times the average wage. $28K in today’s dollars is still way too low to be believable.
I’m reminded of the Architects phrase from The Matrix, “Denial is the most predictable of human responses.”
Your claim I’m wrong because I’m in denial while you outright deny. Sure thing.
I never said you were in denial, I said I was reminded of that phrase. The unreliability of government inflation statistics is well known. Shadowing Reality by John Williams explains it well enough. He claims its a bipartisan effort which reduces fiscal expenses by manipulating the CPI.
Inflation data being a lie is definitely something I’ll agree to.
Yeah, better not to do anything because it might go wrong 100 years from now.
So don’t even try? What nonsense is this?
The same reason I don’t wipe after pooping. It’s just going to get dirty again anyway, so why bother?
Unrelated: I’ve been trying to figure out why my butt is itchy. A real mystery…
And there is nobody to ask as everyone stays away.
The middle class already pays a wealth tax on their greatest asset.