3 ms·

There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually th

by drugme 8y ago

There's no reason to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is just a free wellspring of enough money to fund huge, nation-wide social programs. Actually there's a lot of historical evidence to the effect that, when taxes are more progressive -- income inequality is less severe, affordable housing gets built and infrastructure is better maintained. And not only that: because we're "all in this together", society tends to work more cohesively and deal better with external threats, like say, WW2 (compared to the nosedive into nativism and paranoia we're experience right now, in the face of comparatively lesser threats). Source: U.S. history since the beginning of the corporate era (1880s or so).

pcstl 8y ago
That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.
- drugme 8y ago
  Somewhere between 100% and the woefully inadequate levels we have now -- I'm sure there's a happy medium.
- r00fus 8y ago
  We had a ~90% marginal rate in the 50s and 60s with a roaring economy. I think 70% marginal at a much higher income stepping level even going back to what historically worked.
  - zepto 8y ago
    In the 50’s and 60’s it was far harder to move one’s money abroad or operate as an ‘international citizen’ simply because we didn’t have the infrastructure. Not only that, the advantage of not having had world war 2 on the mainland meant that there were not a lot of attractive and functional alternative economies to move to, where now there are. The argument that it worked fine in the 50’s and 60s and so it would be fine now is based on the assumption that those decades were representative, when in fact they were a historical anomaly.
beaconstudios 8y ago
My point is, if that's true then great - implement higher tax brackets. But you should understand the effects of a drastic change before implementing it. That would ideally involve researching the economic and societal effects that are attributable to tax increases, because simply noting that eras with higher taxes tended to be better isn't a strong case. That's to say nothing of the huge budget the US already has. I mean, there's no reason why you can't both increase taxes and streamline the existing government (e.g. defense for a start) in order to drum up funds for a healthcare system.

by drugme 8y ago

pcstl 8y ago

That making taxes more progressive within certain limits has certain effects does not imply that these effects will progress linearly as tax progressiveness increases. After all, if you had a 100% income tax for some segment of population, they would all just move their money abroad.

drugme 8y ago
Somewhere between 100% and the woefully inadequate levels we have now -- I'm sure there's a happy medium.
r00fus 8y ago
We had a ~90% marginal rate in the 50s and 60s with a roaring economy. I think 70% marginal at a much higher income stepping level even going back to what historically worked.
- zepto 8y ago
  In the 50’s and 60’s it was far harder to move one’s money abroad or operate as an ‘international citizen’ simply because we didn’t have the infrastructure. Not only that, the advantage of not having had world war 2 on the mainland meant that there were not a lot of attractive and functional alternative economies to move to, where now there are. The argument that it worked fine in the 50’s and 60s and so it would be fine now is based on the assumption that those decades were representative, when in fact they were a historical anomaly.

beaconstudios 8y ago

My point is, if that's true then great - implement higher tax brackets. But you should understand the effects of a drastic change before implementing it. That would ideally involve researching the economic and societal effects that are attributable to tax increases, because simply noting that eras with higher taxes tended to be better isn't a strong case. That's to say nothing of the huge budget the US already has. I mean, there's no reason why you can't both increase taxes and streamline the existing government (e.g. defense for a start) in order to drum up funds for a healthcare system.