> Income tax started out as a war fund some one or two hundred years ago...
Prior to industrialization almost all profit surpluses accrued to the elite, who always were taxed quite heavily. Industrialization meant the rise of the wage-earning middle-class and a shift in wealth (not to mention expenditures), thus the income tax.
The revolution in the US from England started with a tax revolt. The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government. The wealthy were not taxed at high rates in the US and Federal revenue was around 3% of GDP until the income tax was implemented. One could hope for a governing class that would let people live with low tax burdens, but that seems to be a difficult thing to sustain.
> The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government.
That's not at all what they hoped to create. The colonists didn't write no taxation or minimize taxation but no taxation without representation. Don't take my word for it, though, they wrote up a whole list of grievances (most of which have to do with the representation bit): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_State...
> They weren't going to accept taxation that came with representation in Parliament.
Why do you think so? My reading of history is that the term 'loyalist' wasn't coined until well after the Boston tea party and several people who were later considered loyalists were participants in that event. It wasn't until it was clear that King George wouldn't respect their rights as Englishmen (three years later) that the patriots drafted the declaration of independence and the revolution began.
The actual list of grievances in the declaration of independence were focused mostly on self determination and representation, not taxes:
1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most necessary for the public good
2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only
4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Their representatives in England were never negotiating with a serious intent of representation. It was pretty clear at the time that colonial representation wasn't workable.
Prior to industrialization almost all profit surpluses accrued to the elite, who always were taxed quite heavily. Industrialization meant the rise of the wage-earning middle-class and a shift in wealth (not to mention expenditures), thus the income tax.