Meh.

Income tax was put in place to pave the way for prohibition. It was only intended for the wealthy. It was to make up for the huge chunk of revenue that came from taxing liquor, wine and beer.

Prior to that, the only way to raise funds outside of trade oriented taxes was a capitation. A tax on each person (man, woman, child).

There exists a set of tax policies that will yield the maximum revenue for the government. It is one that will also yield the broadest economic expansion. I for one would like to see taxation as a fiscal matter rather than a moral/social one. My suspicion is that the optimal tax policy will have about 30% of the income earners off of the tax rolls (it is 40% now due to Bush’s child tax credits) and where high income earners would foot most of the bill (which they do now anyway). You’d have fewer deductions, cut the marginal rates and eliminate refundable credits (something that would eliminate some bizarre distortions that I have now witnessed as a restaurant owner).

Corporate rates have to be competitive with other industrialized countries so that high revenue, high margin (and therefore tax revenue rich) information based service companies stay here rather than go off shore (there is no law that can force them to stay here - they have plenty of attorneys who now how to avoid them).

A consistent set of tax policies that are morally/socially neutral would go a long way towards creating a sustained environment for entrepreneural activity and high income job growth - things we need.