Today is one of those days Americans love to hate: Income
Tax Day.
No matter which country you reside in—or which country your
ancestors hailed from—if you pay taxes, you likely descend from a long line of
taxpaying grumblers. You are in good company.
Here in the U.S., our income tax paying roots would have
stretched back to the War of 1812—but for the fact that politics being
politics, the tax, proposed in 1814, couldn’t get itself implemented before the
end of hostilities in 1815.
Wars and taxes seem to have gone hand in hand, however, for
by the time of the American Civil War, Congress introduced what was to become
the country’s first personal income tax. It was, however, not to be long-lived,
for it was repealed and replaced by a different wartime income tax in the
subsequent year.
The first peacetime income tax in American history didn’t
arise until 1894. If your roots included those fortunate enough to earn at
least $4000 for the year, your ancestors would have had to pay two percent on
that amount. Not to worry, though: incomes of that level were only achieved by
less than ten percent of American households of the time.
I suspect my husband’s great grandfather, Chicagoan John
Tully, was not among those fortunate few. Though he likely was pleased to be
more financially successful than he would have been, had his Irish parents
chosen to leave him in the County Tipperary townland of his birth, he still
showed signs of great concern over his financial status—and, regarding which, what
the government considered their rightful claim.
How do I know this? He left his records of tax payments
among his most important papers—which, of course, meant his record-hording
daughter Agnes Tully Stevens felt it her duty to carefully store those records
for future years, just in case. Which meant her
son Edward accepted the responsibility of preserving them for…for…well, who knows
what. But when Uncle Ed passed away, who should the family think would be the
appropriate person to step into the role of family records archivist? Why, the
gal who peppered Uncle Ed with all those genealogy questions, of course!
When I look at the pages of those old tax records—receipts from
April 23, 1889, for example—I can’t help but see John Tully’s taxpaying ledger from the perspective of the tax history timeline of our nation. While
he certainly wasn’t eligible to be taxed at the national level at that time—and
by the time the Federal Income Tax, as we know it, was instituted in 1913, he
was long gone—he did, however, have to pay his due to local taxing authorities.
Being almost a
civil servant, having served in the South Park police force of the era (before it became part of the Chicago Police Department), John Tully faced a two-edged
sword: what he hated paying for in taxes, he most certainly needed as salary to
meet his family’s own financial needs.
Perhaps his concern over such taxing matters was inherited by his daughter, Agnes. Maybe that is why, preserved among that stash of tax receipts, was a
chart illustrating the ubiquitous “Where Your Tax Dollars are Spent” topic
fielded by most local governmental entities. This must have been quite
important to them—or maybe no one knew to throw it out, after Agnes died. For what
it’s worth, I know—and now, you do, too—how the City of Chicago spent its residents’ hard earned
money in 1917.
Taxes couldn’t have been too outrageous, however, judging
from a historical perspective. Though John Tully was no longer there to pay
such rates, by the time federal income taxes were implemented, the top rate was
only seven percent—on incomes above five hundred thousand. In case you’re
wondering, that would be well over ten million in today’s money.
An interesting set of charts at Wikipedia delineates the
history of federal income tax rates—and then adjusts them for inflation—in case you
are curious about what your American ancestors did have to pay. Handily, the chart extends to the year 2010,
giving us a bird’s eye view of how much the government could “feel your pain”
in any given year. It certainly shows which years were designed to “stick it to
the rich”—the war years of 1941-1946 and again in 1964-1965—and which ones really did
deliver the “taxpayer relief” various Acts purported to provide.
Still, history buff that I am, there is nothing about April
15 over which to be enamored. While we history types like to imagine simpler
days of the past, those tax woes used to stress out our forebears just as much
as they do us. And though we can take heart that, after the close of financial
reporting for Fiscal Year 2014 today there will come an April 16, we can’t help
but realize it’s but the first day of the rest of a new taxpaying year.
Love that pie chart -- taxes to fight TB, pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, Wendy--it was more than cool. It was a desperate measure for the city. Tuberculosis was rampant in Chicago during that time period and the city took some important public health policy moves to turn that trend around.
DeleteLast fall, I published an article in the Illinois State Genealogical Society's Quarterly, dovetailing Chicago public health efforts with Agnes Tully's letters to priests and other acquaintances in the Southwest, trying to recover from tuberculosis exposure in Chicago. It was quite an eye-opener to realize the immensity of that administrative imperative. What a devastating mix of disease and overcrowded, unsanitary conditions! Considering that, it was no wonder those taxes were earmarked specifically for TB!
Yes I thought the inclusion of TB to be interesting. I am glad to have the taxes behind me, our system is so stupid. I think an across the board tax for every dollar spent would be a fair tax, instead of all the paperwork that the common person cannot fill out.
ReplyDeleteI guess I've been party to too many arguments to the contrary--like the consideration that that would be a tax unfairly imposed on the less fortunate. (After a point, the more fortunate wouldn't need to spend as great a percentage of their money on necessities as would the poorer ones, thus making that sort of tax a "regressive" one that proportionally hits the poorer folks harder.)
DeleteNo matter which way you slice it, finding an equitable way to share the tax burden is a complex challenge, and paying it will never be a grumble-free proposition--an aspect of our heritage we most certainly have in common with our forebears.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes if a) I could figure out how without a Ph.D in Gover-babble speak b) knowing a goodly amount of it was wasted and essentially flushed down the toilet and c) having a real voice (not a hypothetical one) in where the $$ were spent.
ReplyDeleteWell...at least maybe it would help decrease the animosity!
Delete