And Lincoln was responsible for that-how?
Oh, I know he issued a decree from the grave.
Sometimes war measures do not get removed at all, like withholding tax, which was something that we got in WW2.
War does require high taxes. So did peace, evidently, in the minds of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
And when was Lincoln alive to make policy during peacetime?
That 'minor'tax increase was the third largest peacetime tax increase in our history. By what measure? In terms of percentage increases on the Social Security tax as measured over comparable seven year periods, Reagan's increase of .65% was the SMALLEST since the Truman administration.
By amount of money it took in.
It is rated third after Bush's and Clinton's.
By creating them. Using your same inept reasoning, we should cease blaming FDR for social security after 1945 even though he created it just like Lincoln created the income tax.
Sometimes war measures do not get removed at all, like withholding tax, which was something that we got in WW2.
Hence the problem with government programs in general.
And when was Lincoln alive to make policy during peacetime?
His entire lifetime prior to April 11, 1861 excepting the Mexican War and the War of 1812. During that period he served as a state legislator, congressman, Republican Party official and stump speaker, U.S. Senate candidate, U.S. presidential candidate, U.S. president elect, and a month and a half as President. He had more than enough of an opportunity to espouse, promote, and execute peacetime tax hikes.
By amount of money it took in.
As noted previously, measuring a tax cut's severity on its revenue rather than its rates is economically fallacious for the reason that it violates the Laffer Curve. In doing so it leads to conclusions that are downright idiotic whereby a relatively minor 5% tax hike would be rated as "larger" than a 60% tax hike that causes economic ruin to a degree that it suppresses revenues.