(02-03-2020, 11:46 AM)Last42min Wrote: Of course. Let me clarify: I am suggesting people in power wanted more tax revenue, and questioning the idea that people in power wanted more married families.

The original poster makes it seem like there was a set tax rate, and that it was adjusted to socially engineer more nuclear families. This implies that there was a shortage of nuclear families, and the powers that be schemed to create more.

I am suggesting that there were already nuclear families, and that the powers that be wanted more tax revenue. Knowing that it would be an unpopular idea, it excluded nuclear families so the majority wouldn't push back against the idea.

I am also stating that I am doing this with no proof, so I could be dead wrong. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the latter is a far more likely option. I could probably google it to find out more, but I wanted to take a stab in the dark.

Tax rates and carve-outs have fluctuated up and down many times over the 100 years of federal income tax.  It probably happened as you describe a few times, and some other way other times. 
The instinct that people see taxes as punishment, and that they will look to punish people that they stereotype as "other," is spot-on.  The "punish others" instinct also explains prohibition and the drug war.

---