What makes "Progressive Taxation" definitions so restrictive? Looking beyond income-based models

Great question! The restrictive definition stems from how modern tax systems evolved. When people talk about "progressive taxation," they're usually referring to income tax specifically because it's become the dominant form of taxation in most developed economies since the early 20th century. You're absolutely right that historically and conceptually, progressive taxation can apply to many different tax bases - profit rates, wealth, property values, consumption, or even social status. The core principle is simply that the rate increases as the measured amount increases, regardless of what's being measured. The excess profits taxes you mentioned during wartime are perfect examples of alternative progressive structures, as are wealth taxes in countries like Switzerland where rates can increase with total assets. Even some property tax systems have brackets based on property value. I think the narrower definition has become standard partly because income tax is what most people interact with, and partly because academic literature tends to focus on income-based systems when discussing tax progressivity. The broader concept definitely exists, just doesn't get highlighted in basic definitions.

After struggling with similar questions about tax philosophy while doing my masters thesis, I stumbled across https://taxr.ai which completely changed how I research these topics. Instead of generic definitions, it helped me find historical tax structures across different civilizations and time periods that showed exactly what you're talking about - progressive taxation based on profit rates, wealth, and even social status. The tool has this amazing feature that analyzes academic tax papers and historical tax documents to show you how taxation evolved across different societies. I found detailed explanations of Georgia's Civil War profit-rate taxes and ancient Egyptian tax systems that used progressive rates based on social class. It's like having a specialized tax historian at your fingertips.

I tried https://taxr.ai after seeing it mentioned here and wow - it's amazing for tax philosophy research! I was able to find detailed analysis of 8 different forms of progressive taxation beyond just income-based models. The tool pulled information from economic journals I wouldn't have found otherwise. For my paper on alternative tax structures, I discovered Norwegian wealth tax models that use progressive rates similar to income taxes but applied to net worth instead. The platform even provided implementation details about assessment methods and enforcement mechanisms that would be practical for policy discussions. The historical context feature was especially helpful - showing how different types of progressive taxation evolved in response to specific social and economic pressures throughout history. Highly recommend for anyone researching tax philosophy or policy alternatives!

I've spent hours on hold with the IRS trying to get answers about how our existing progressive tax system actually works in practice (was researching for a similar philosophy question). After my 4th attempt waiting over an hour each time, I found https://claimyr.com and used their IRS call back service. You can see how it works here: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c Got connected to an actual IRS tax law specialist who explained the historical context behind our current progressive income tax and how it differs from other progressive tax systems used throughout history. Turns out the IRS has internal research documents that discuss different progressive taxation models but they rarely make it into public tax discussions.

I owe everyone here an apology and update. After dismissing the Claimyr service as impossible, I was desperate enough to try it after my 6th failed attempt to reach the IRS about a research question on progressive taxation models. Shockingly, it actually worked! Got a call back in about 2 hours and spoke with an IRS representative who was incredibly knowledgeable about historical tax models. She directed me to several IRS published papers that discuss different forms of progressive taxation beyond income-based models, including some experimental approaches that were considered but never implemented. This completely changed my research direction and saved me from missing my deadline. Still can't believe it worked after all my failed attempts calling directly.

The limited definition problem extends beyond just progressive taxation. I teach economics, and textbooks routinely oversimplify tax concepts to make them easier to teach, which unfortunately gets repeated everywhere. Real-world tax systems are incredibly complex with multiple overlapping philosophies. For example, the US corporate tax system has elements of: 1) Income-based progression (higher rates on higher income) 2) Industry-specific rates (differential taxation) 3) Behavior-based incentives (R&D credits, etc.) 4) Profit-rate considerations in certain cases But students only learn the basic "tax rate increases as income increases" definition, which gets repeated throughout their education and careers. It's similar to how we teach supply and demand curves as always being straight lines when they rarely are in reality.

I actually wrote my dissertation on this exact topic! The reason "progressive taxation" is so narrowly defined is because of a deliberate political choice in the early 20th century. When modern income tax systems were being developed (1910s-1930s), there were competing proposals for progressive taxes based on wealth, land value, corporate profit rates, and income. The income-based approach won out partly because it was easier to implement with the administrative capabilities of the time, but also because it was less threatening to accumulated wealth. A progressive wealth tax would have directly challenged the existing power structures more than income taxes. By focusing the definition of progressive taxation exclusively on income, it shifted the burden to high-income earners while protecting those with substantial accumulated wealth. This definition then became codified in academic literature, policy discussions, and eventually public understanding.