EDIT: I guess we do have employer tax as national insurance contributions too, always forget about that since I’ve always paid myself under that threshold
The UK does have employers NI contributions but that's not what I mean. The point is, if you spent a year to earn a gross £100k, and as you earn it, pay £50k of total tax, and with the remaining £40k/£50k you spend it on an employee at your company in salary and pay then £20k of tax, the government has that year earned £70k from that £100k passing through.
You can argue that really "£140k" has passed through, but it's not the case, because you created a new job that wouldn't otherwise have existed had you instead saved that £40k for a house. Either way HMRC gets £70k this year rather than £50k.
The wider point I was making is that all companies, even for-profit, pay tax to do just about anything, and companies with much lower sales than costs aren't just paying nothing. They generally have higher costs because they are paying people, and paying their taxes every month. The tax per employee is completely uncorrelated with the financial profit or thereof by the business, so it's a (sensible) misconception that companies that don't make profit like startups don't contribute to the economy. They do, by paying employment taxes.
I'm really making the point that you have to account for employee taxes (both employer and employee as you mention) for your costs as a business. That means, even though you already paid those yourself when you carried out the work to gain savings to invest in your business (to spend on an employee), you have to pay again when paying your employee.
I.e. Self-funded or businesses launched from previous accrued personal income where you invest your own time as well result in a bad tax situation;
whereas an employee earning £100k might pay £50k tax total and save £50k for a house (no VAT),
The alternate of investing that £50k in your business by paying someone £40k means you have to pay that employees PAYE, their Employer and Employee NI. So the government gets to re-tax most of that money when you use it to hire someone to build a new business with you, in a way they don't if you use it to buy a house, in terms of practical impact. When you pay yourself as an entrepreneur depends, there's dividends+PAYE in the UK (which requires yes you pay for both your employer and employee tax for yourself) or capital gains(ignoring tax schemes), either way, you do get taxed at some point to bring cash out.
The government in other words massively benefits from unprofitable for-profit companies so long as they hire some people, especially if the companies are self-funded. But even if it is investment, it's better to have that money spent on salaries now in new companies than sitting as stock in larger companies that keep cash reserves or use schemes to avoid tax. They get much more tax from people starting even unprofitable new businesses, than from employees who simply save money.
It's one of the reasons that since the introduction of income taxes (more or less WW1 in most countries!), you need money to get money in way that you fundamentally did not in the same way back when you could earn $50 from someone and directly use that same $50 to pay someone for the same skills without any loss of value.
You should consider it also from the point of view of the employee. The government taxes your employee to offer him services, it does not care who hires him (you, that saved the money).
Yes, it is true that you need lots of money to HIRE someone, but you can try to do a startup with a couple people that live from their savings for a while (so, not paying themselves a salary, but having shares) which avoids the tax situation as first.
I think we are quite bad to assess how was life around 1900 in terms of infrastructure (in any country) - so yes, probably people paid less taxes but lived in much worse overall conditions.
Forget who the government is supposed to be taxing for what supposed purpose. The decision about asset and income law working differently (liabilities counting for one and all sources being able to intermingle over the financial year, financially speaking, for assets - with income always being payable within a month) is why these taxes work differently in practice then just one being for income, and one for personal asset (accrual). We could instead "tax an employee to offer his services" with a tax which allowed them to discount the liability of savings spent in businesses from their due tax from other sources, or we could charge higher capital gains than personal taxes.
If you earned the original income from renting out properties or capital gains however and then invested it, you can write it off as a loss for your overall individual capital gains, pay $0 for all your rental/share increase in value, and only pay for the startups employee, with no tax on your original income as a result that tax year.
If you have asset wealth, you don't get taxed twice like this as you can write it off. If you have income based savings wealth, you always get taxed and can't count it against investments you make.
1900 is obviously different but income taxes help people with assets retain them for the reasons mentioned above. If Assets were taxed at a higher rate and you could not personally include liabilities in your capital gains (as with income), then it would be the opposite scenario.
We say capital gains tax is all about wealth, but it's not: The US has no wealth tax. The capital gains tax is just lower tax on unearned income and the ability to intermingle that income. It's all income at the end of the day - just one, income from work, the government taxes heavily, the other, the government taxes less heavily, but most people never significantly earn that income.
