> you are pretty uninformed [...] SS and Medicare

This is another aspect where your thesis is not-fully-baked. If you want people to receive what you meant, you have to stop writing it wrong.

1. You spoke about "the federal tax rate" and claimed it was "0" in 1900.

2. The most charitable interpretation of that is that you meant to say income tax: That's usually what people mean when they're too-vague; It would literally be $0 before it was introduced in 1913; You can't have meant all taxes because those were absolutely >0 and you wouldn't make that kind of math mistake, right?

3. When critiquing the growth and dominance of the income tax, that excludes the separate taxes (payroll) that go to SS/Medicare.

> capitalist economy

I'm not taking a stand on the "what the US is" conclusion at this point. What I'm saying is that your argument--how you're getting there--is unsound (can't ignore state/local level) and unclear (which numbers from where).