What is your point? In 1918 the minimum rate was 12% (reduced to 8% in 1919) on $4m (~$55,000 in current dollars) income. Only 5% paid federal income taxes so you can't use as this an example of high taxation either. What you seem to be missing is that this tax increase was to support a war (towards which end it was effective, funding 1/3 of the war cost). Same with the 40s. In the quaint old days war was a shared burden.
Because people would be empowered to live freely instead of as slaves - that simply cannot occur when power hungry psychos control the world.
Prof. Carroll Quigley wrote extensively on the progression of civilizations and identified a basic order in the evolution of political systems. He elaborates on his theories in The Evolution of Civilizations: http://ia351443.us.archive.org/0/it...ns-AnIntroductionToHistoricalAnalysis1979.pdf I'd like to add that the classical democracies upon which modern representative democracies are based, those of ancient Rome and Athens, progressed into tyrannies. Two prominent examples in more recent history would be the French Republic and the Weimar Republic.
The 'democracy' of Rome and Athens included 15%-20% of the total population: 80% of adults were disenfranchised. As far as France and Germany, although I certainly have an issue with some of their anti-freedom laws, I would say that they enjoy as much freedom, on the whole, as we do. Some things we outlaw, they allow. Some things they outlaw, we allow. In any event, I am not aware of any democracies becoming 'tyrannies'.
Also, they weren't democracies. They were republics. It was setup for a small population too I believe.
Sorry, just thinking aloud really. With the exception of the two world wars, there weren't really any periods of what I would consider excessive taxation of anyone but the super wealthy. I actually don't even know why I'm arguing in favor of trickle down economics when I am actually a proponent of consumption tax only.
Consumption Tax: Continuing with the same numbers that I cited above from my 2007 tax returns. Of the 159K Adjusted Gross Income, we spent approxiamately 48K during the year. We track our expenditures in Quicken and we slice the data very fine. For example, some of our categores include: Food- Groceries, Food- Eating Out, Lottery, Vacation- Lodging, Vacation- Food, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Insurance- Auto, Insurance- Health...you get the idea. Now, in 2007 we paid 28.7K in Federal Income Taxes. In order for a Consumption Tax to generate the same amount of tax revenue you would have to have a tax rate of 59.79% !!! (28.7 / 48). It would really be higher because all Consumption Tax proposals that I've seen would exempt Food, Medicine, and many other 'things'. In addition to failing to generate enough revenue, the Consumption Tax is extremely Regressive. Consider a family of 4 who only makes 60K per year. They HAVE TO spend every dime they make just to stay alive: they would be taxed on all of their income. Meanwhile, we would be taxed only on the 48K that we spend. Those who make the least are paying the highest percentage tax rate. The "rich" will get richer and the poor wil get poorer at an even greater pace than we are experiencing now. And that is the biggest problem facing our country today.