4 ms·

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u3089/images/2014/fctax-plus-cp-decades-data.jpg http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u3089/images/2014/fctax-plus-cp-decades-data.jpg http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u308... Have a look at the period 1950-1970. If we were to tax corporations at the same rate as they were in that golden period we would not have a national deficit. >Where's the evidence that this solidarity ever existed? https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder... 1950, 1960 again.

xaa 9y ago
Sure, fair enough. I was implicitly talking about 1980s to present (the period when the inequality began to spike), but obviously was not clear about that. However, in the present day, I don't think it is just the 1% who are against a corporate tax increase. That would hit IRAs, pensions, and investments for those who can afford such things.
- korrachs 9y ago
  >However, in the present day, I don't think it is just the 1% who are against a corporate tax increase. As I said: I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. The top 19% do not trust government because for the last 40 years government has been hijacked and made to work against the people. A perfect example: would you support a 30% hike to pay for Trumps border wall? If not, why are you against tax increases?
  - xaa 9y ago
    The trouble is that it is not hard to point out flaws in any system, government programs included. Many Republicans have taken this to the logical extreme: they say government programs CANNOT work. In solidly red areas, they justify this by pointing at how their local school districts or whatever are failing badly. Why are they failing? In large part due to lack of funding. So, low funding creates failure which is used to justify lower funding. It's circular. In cases where there is clear evidence that a socialized alternative can work, like healthcare, the evidence is simply ignored. This is not to say that the government cannot waste money. Of course it can: walls, military spending, and so on. But your argument is dangerously close to the hypothetical Republican one. The only solution I can see is for taxpayers to BOTH be willing to pay taxes AND demand value for their money.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      But your argument is just the extreme. Everybody always wants more spending, but they always want it so more stuff is done for them. Problem with money is that it represents economic activity. If the government spends more you need to work more (with borrowing becomes slightly more complex, working more now, or working even more in the future). And when it comes to that, your logic would change as well. Would you work (under a bad boss, etc ... ie. work, as in actual work, whatever it takes) to improve those schools ? For a very large majority the answer is no.

xaa 9y ago

Sure, fair enough. I was implicitly talking about 1980s to present (the period when the inequality began to spike), but obviously was not clear about that. However, in the present day, I don't think it is just the 1% who are against a corporate tax increase. That would hit IRAs, pensions, and investments for those who can afford such things.

korrachs 9y ago
>However, in the present day, I don't think it is just the 1% who are against a corporate tax increase. As I said: I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability. The top 19% do not trust government because for the last 40 years government has been hijacked and made to work against the people. A perfect example: would you support a 30% hike to pay for Trumps border wall? If not, why are you against tax increases?
- xaa 9y ago
  The trouble is that it is not hard to point out flaws in any system, government programs included. Many Republicans have taken this to the logical extreme: they say government programs CANNOT work. In solidly red areas, they justify this by pointing at how their local school districts or whatever are failing badly. Why are they failing? In large part due to lack of funding. So, low funding creates failure which is used to justify lower funding. It's circular. In cases where there is clear evidence that a socialized alternative can work, like healthcare, the evidence is simply ignored. This is not to say that the government cannot waste money. Of course it can: walls, military spending, and so on. But your argument is dangerously close to the hypothetical Republican one. The only solution I can see is for taxpayers to BOTH be willing to pay taxes AND demand value for their money.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    But your argument is just the extreme. Everybody always wants more spending, but they always want it so more stuff is done for them. Problem with money is that it represents economic activity. If the government spends more you need to work more (with borrowing becomes slightly more complex, working more now, or working even more in the future). And when it comes to that, your logic would change as well. Would you work (under a bad boss, etc ... ie. work, as in actual work, whatever it takes) to improve those schools ? For a very large majority the answer is no.