4 ms·
"But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the old-fashioned faith in “solidarit
by mnm1 10y ago
"But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the old-fashioned faith in “solidarity” with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders of society’s strongest."
This has never happened in the past, but similar things have happened, always driven by violence. Can this happen without violence, I wonder?
- ktRolster 10y agoCan this happen without violence, I wonder? If you can get enough people on your side to win a war, you can get enough people on your side to win an election.
- pekk 10y agoSure, if the wealthy voluntarily decide to do this, or if they can be convinced to do so in civil conversation. Given the heat of pushback on small tax increases, I wouldn't bet on this happening without chaos. I wouldn't bet on it happening with chaos either.
- rsync 10y ago"Given the heat of pushback on small tax increases, I wouldn't bet on this happening without chaos." There's a big difference between pushback on increasing taxes from zero to five percent, or ten to fifteen percent ... and pushback on increases from 40 -> 42% or 45 -> 48%. In the US, it is the latter that we are most frequently discussing and it is the latter that gets all of the pushback that you find so familiar. If you think your chlorine level is too high in your pool, shouldn't you oppose all increases, no matter how minute ? If your blood pressure is too high, shouldn't you be opposed to all increases, regardless of how small or how much "you can afford it" ? Some people (like me) think that effective tax rates of roughly 50% (US, California, Marin County) are too high. I would then, ipso facto, be opposed to further increases and I am troubled by the fact that this is considered a definite political marker. It's not.
- hexane360 10y agoSo you think both that rich people would be willing to give more money, and that rich people think they're already giving too much money? Or is there some fundamental difference between marginal tax systems and what OP was discussing?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Frondo 10y agoSure, except the wealthy were doing just fine when taxes were significantly higher for them. They weren't suffering--they were still extremely wealthy, far more than everyone else. For them to complain that their chlorine level is too high, when in the past it was twice as high or higher, and they were still living high on the hog? Sorry, don't care how they feel, tax the heck out of them.
- ed_balls 10y agoDo you know was the effective tax back then? (it was much easier to hide money and the deductions were greater)
- Sacho 10y agoDoes your plan account for wealth escaping your attempts to tax it, leading to less taxes overall? We had the Apple money thread yesterday here..
- rsync 10y ago"Sure, except the wealthy were doing just fine when taxes were significantly higher for them. They weren't suffering--they were still extremely wealthy, far more than everyone else." Income taxes were never significantly higher than they are now in the United States. You are thinking of the anti war profiteering tax brackets that were put into place after the entry into WW2. This was not a tax increase in the way you think of it and it was not designed to generate revenue or redistribute wealth - it was a patriotic act to ensure that nobody benefited financially from the prosecution of the war. If you compare tax rates and use those as an anchor, you don't know what you're talking about.