Of course, back then, you worked till the day you died, since there was no Social Security.
Or you bought your house outright and saved your money for retirement like a responsible adult would. Just as an example putting that money directly into a 3% APR passbook savings account would likely return more than putting into Social Security. You might want to look at something like this for some detailed numbers: http://www.inmessment.com/finance/is-social-security-a-good-investment-lets-review-the-numbers/
And that would be quite soon if you got sick and didn't happen to be wealthy, since there was no Medicare or Medicaid.
I again refer to the link above for return on investment. In addition there is a strong case to be made that medicare and medicaid pervert the natural cost and procedures used. What they are willing to pay for gets used whether it is the best way to do it or not (insurance also has this effect). This in the end increases the overall cost of healthcare. It has gotten so bad that doctors don't even know what the cost of the procedures they order are thereby removing any chance of controlling expense or cost while treating a problem. If you don't believe go to your general practicioner and ask them for EXACT pricing. Many will provide an estimate that is off by almost 30 - 40% because the cost has risen that much since they last knew them.
And let's not forget that there were no food stamps or WIC checks, so if you were poor, you were liable to starve.That is, if you didn't rob or kill to get your food.
And there were no battered women shelters, or protections of any sort for abuse victims.
Yes, you are correct there was nothing like charities, local community groups (lions, jaycees, kiwanis, etc) that did anything to help out those in need. Most of those groups are gone or almost inactive now because the government stepped in to handle it. Good thing to because there is no waste, fraud or other negative effects from a system that HAS to provide for people even if they have a huge number of kids to get more from the state for it. Go live near a housing project and tell me food stamps are a great idea. I used to see people sell them for 30 - 50 cents on the dollar in most of the local grocery stores so they could by items not covered when I was a student. All these things used to be covered by charities and local community social organisations. Additionally, according to your premise as taxes rose crime should decrease. I'm not and expert but this doesn't seem to agree with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
And there were no regulations to stop companies from dumping all sorts of nasty shit into your air or water, or outright putting it into your food as filler.
These laws could be made anyway and the EPA funded by excise taxes and/or hefty fines for companies that violated the rules. You do realise that before there was income tax there was a large government surplus, right? It's before all these programs we "authorised" under the reinterpretation of "the general welfare" clause. As it is now company fines are considerably less than the profits from the violations. I point to the gulf spill, fracking, valdez and BP oil spills, divesting of GM's useful assets from all the environmentally damaged sites leaving them to be left as is with no real chance of funding for proper cleaning as clear examples of how large companies are not held accountable for the environmental damage they do. These same issues apply to FDA which is now self funded by the companies that apply for product approval and has led to using carbon monoxide to keep meat red to fool customers, BPA still allowed in many containers even baby bottles, BHT in milk, pushing of genetically modified foods one Europe and other countries before proper testing.
And of course your employer could force you to work 12 hours a day, with no weekends, and no overtime -- not that it mattered, since they could also pay you in scrip which was only good in the company store
Why are taxes needed to create these laws again? These laws easily could have been put in place without income tax. Not all advances require massive governmental bodies that need ongoing funding.
I'll tell you what. If you don't like paying to live in a civilized society, then you are welcome to get the fuck out. We'll be better off without you.
You just might want to educate yourself on the actual effects of these changes before being so hostile to a contrary point of view. I am by no means saying that things back then were optimal but to blindly say that things today are better because of income tax seems to be just as naive as saying everything was pie in the sky good back then. One thing that should be quite clear is that the bigger the government is the more corruption there will be. Another thing that could be said is at least back then no generation STOLE from the next when not in a time of declared war. Maybe I am just too simple but leaving a huge debt to the next generation at the same time we pollute a large portion of the country seems rather selfish to me. Last but by no means least is the loss of the feeling people can make a difference in the country. I've lived in a few other countries and the major advantage I have seen the U.S. has over most other countries is the small business entrepreneurial spirit. I have also seen this wane considerably in the last 15 years under the increasing heavy handed monopolies and corruption. In the end have these problems been mostly resolved by the use of the income tax? Considering all the money that goes into it as well as all the time people waste in filing and tracking expenditures for it I would expect a much better return on 30-40% of the total production of the country. Maybe I just expect more than you do.
