5 ms·

Wow, that chart shows tax rates on the wealthy dropping from 70% to 23% in the last 70 years. Now probably 70% was too socialist and may not fly in a globalised

by eloff 7y ago

Wow, that chart shows tax rates on the wealthy dropping from 70% to 23% in the last 70 years. Now probably 70% was too socialist and may not fly in a globalised world where is a lot easier to move to a lower tax country or state (I'd move if I had to pay that.) But this seems ridiculously tilted to the other extreme now. Edit: I don't understand the objections to my comment. If you have a problem with the data behind that chart, that's not my problem. If you object to the usage of the word socialist - that's a common usage, don't be so pedantic.

Synaesthesia 7y ago
It’s hardly socialist, unless the USA was socialist in the 50’s lol. Socialism anyway, real socialism is supposed to be about workers owning the factories they work in. What you’re describing is a welfare state.
- traderjane 7y ago
  I thought workers owning the means of production was communism, whereas socialism has come to mean the distribution of value to society through highly general programs.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    Socialism: You give your paycheck to the government. Communism: The government gives your paycheck to you.
    - ivalm 7y ago
      No, Communism: there is no governemnt, we're a workers' utopia now.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    No. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Socialism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Socialism The mistake comes from the misconception that Scandinavia is Socialist. It is not: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nordic_model https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nordic_model The nordic model is a welfare state with multi-level collective bargaining (think unions and corporations everywhere). Though the term welfare state sounds really really bad, they are actually doing really really well.
  - throwaway744678 7y ago
    This is the current meaning of the word. But let's not forget where it comes from. Historically communists saw themselves as the true socialists (eg. USSR)
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Socialism has a real definition which means the people owning the means of production. Just because people confuse it with a welfare state doesn’t change the myriads of literature discussing this philosophy. Just shows the continued failures of our public schools to teach even basic concepts.
  - Throw_Away_8563 7y ago
    No. Communism is a stateless and classless society, that, in Marxism, is the next step after the "dictatorship of the proletariat", or the ideology that wants to achieve this state. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Communism is a form of socialism.
  - captainbland 7y ago
    My understanding is as such: Communism (the ideal): a classless, moneyless society where all states around the world have withered away and people are free to organise themselves outside the tyranny of the state or private property owners Communist Party: Authoritarians who like to use the above as a carrot and seem to like to create one-party states who never wither away. They claim to represent workers but tend to stick their own representatives anywhere that has any economic significance. Leftist critics of such societies often characterise this as "state capitalism" where the state is effectively one gigantic, brutal monopoly. In Lenin's words "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Socialism (marxist): Workers own the means of production as a vital step towards communism Bourgeois socialism: A pejorative for what we call social democracy or democratic socialism Social democracy: The distribution of value to society through highly general programs, as you put it, within a liberal, capitalist society. Democratic socialism: Social ownership (i.e. co-ops, municipal ownership, some nationalisation) of the "means of production", usually still within a market and otherwise retaining liberal democracy and usually also aiming to implement social democratic policies, too. Also interesting: Ricardian socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism
- meerita 7y ago
  No, workers don't own anything in Socialist States. In Socialism, it is the State that owns everything and obligate the workers to work. You cannot create any business in Socialist states due the nature of the abolition of private property. You cannot choose what to work, it's the State who assign you that.
  - Synaesthesia 7y ago
    Then they're not socialist states. In fact the USSR was a counter-socialist state, they had to overcome the real revolution and re-instate managerial control from the workers, at great difficulty.
    - meerita 7y ago
      The USSR was a full blown socialist state. They managed capital in the practice, they also traded with other countries and let farmers do commerce due the war with them. but that was their strategy (on Russia) but in the rest of the socialist states they didn't. There's so much books written about this topic you can never end to find contradictions in their rules. Of course the elite lived like the best capitalists.
adnzzzzZ 7y ago
There were a lot more exemptions, deductions and credits back then so the effective tax rate was not even close to 70% and was not much higher than it is today. Not sure why this article didn't mention this at all but I can guess, coming from the New York Times and all.
- fiter 7y ago
  I believe the nominal tax rate now is not ~20%, so then the graphs are all showing effective, not nominal, and their point stands.
- apazzolini 7y ago
  Since you're so sure of your viewpoint and the NYT's bias, it should be really easy for you to go into more detail here, right? (I'm not expecting a thorough response from you, don't worry)
  - ytNumbers 7y ago
    https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
    - apazzolini 7y ago
      See the rest of the comments on this post to understand why this link isn't useful in the discussion of taxes on the top 0.01%, which is the subject of the parent article.
      - ytNumbers 7y ago
        One aspect of what can be found in the NYT article is a graph that shows the people at the very top of the income pyramid paying a 70% tax rate in 1950. However, there's a nominal tax rate versus what someone actually winds up paying after various deductions an loopholes. An earlier study by the same authors of this latest publication that the NYT is citing indicates that those in the top 1% were paying around 40% in 1950. Based on that, I find the claim that those at the very top paid 70% in 1950 to be highly doubtful. Am I right about this? Well, I guess I'll have to wait a week for this latest book to be published, or until the NYT issues a correction. The earlier study from these same authors, which was cited in the link I posted above, can be found at: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/2/553/4430651/ https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/2/553/4430651/

by eloff 7y ago

Synaesthesia 7y ago

It’s hardly socialist, unless the USA was socialist in the 50’s lol. Socialism anyway, real socialism is supposed to be about workers owning the factories they work in. What you’re describing is a welfare state.

traderjane 7y ago
I thought workers owning the means of production was communism, whereas socialism has come to mean the distribution of value to society through highly general programs.
- rriepe 7y ago
  Socialism: You give your paycheck to the government. Communism: The government gives your paycheck to you.
  - ivalm 7y ago
    No, Communism: there is no governemnt, we're a workers' utopia now.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  No. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Socialism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Socialism The mistake comes from the misconception that Scandinavia is Socialist. It is not: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nordic_model https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nordic_model The nordic model is a welfare state with multi-level collective bargaining (think unions and corporations everywhere). Though the term welfare state sounds really really bad, they are actually doing really really well.
- throwaway744678 7y ago
  This is the current meaning of the word. But let's not forget where it comes from. Historically communists saw themselves as the true socialists (eg. USSR)
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Socialism has a real definition which means the people owning the means of production. Just because people confuse it with a welfare state doesn’t change the myriads of literature discussing this philosophy. Just shows the continued failures of our public schools to teach even basic concepts.
- Throw_Away_8563 7y ago
  No. Communism is a stateless and classless society, that, in Marxism, is the next step after the "dictatorship of the proletariat", or the ideology that wants to achieve this state. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Communism is a form of socialism.
- captainbland 7y ago
  My understanding is as such: Communism (the ideal): a classless, moneyless society where all states around the world have withered away and people are free to organise themselves outside the tyranny of the state or private property owners Communist Party: Authoritarians who like to use the above as a carrot and seem to like to create one-party states who never wither away. They claim to represent workers but tend to stick their own representatives anywhere that has any economic significance. Leftist critics of such societies often characterise this as "state capitalism" where the state is effectively one gigantic, brutal monopoly. In Lenin's words "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Socialism (marxist): Workers own the means of production as a vital step towards communism Bourgeois socialism: A pejorative for what we call social democracy or democratic socialism Social democracy: The distribution of value to society through highly general programs, as you put it, within a liberal, capitalist society. Democratic socialism: Social ownership (i.e. co-ops, municipal ownership, some nationalisation) of the "means of production", usually still within a market and otherwise retaining liberal democracy and usually also aiming to implement social democratic policies, too. Also interesting: Ricardian socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism
meerita 7y ago
No, workers don't own anything in Socialist States. In Socialism, it is the State that owns everything and obligate the workers to work. You cannot create any business in Socialist states due the nature of the abolition of private property. You cannot choose what to work, it's the State who assign you that.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  Then they're not socialist states. In fact the USSR was a counter-socialist state, they had to overcome the real revolution and re-instate managerial control from the workers, at great difficulty.
  - meerita 7y ago
    The USSR was a full blown socialist state. They managed capital in the practice, they also traded with other countries and let farmers do commerce due the war with them. but that was their strategy (on Russia) but in the rest of the socialist states they didn't. There's so much books written about this topic you can never end to find contradictions in their rules. Of course the elite lived like the best capitalists.

adnzzzzZ 7y ago

There were a lot more exemptions, deductions and credits back then so the effective tax rate was not even close to 70% and was not much higher than it is today. Not sure why this article didn't mention this at all but I can guess, coming from the New York Times and all.

fiter 7y ago
I believe the nominal tax rate now is not ~20%, so then the graphs are all showing effective, not nominal, and their point stands.
apazzolini 7y ago
Since you're so sure of your viewpoint and the NYT's bias, it should be really easy for you to go into more detail here, right? (I'm not expecting a thorough response from you, don't worry)
- ytNumbers 7y ago
  https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
  - apazzolini 7y ago
    See the rest of the comments on this post to understand why this link isn't useful in the discussion of taxes on the top 0.01%, which is the subject of the parent article.
    - ytNumbers 7y ago
      One aspect of what can be found in the NYT article is a graph that shows the people at the very top of the income pyramid paying a 70% tax rate in 1950. However, there's a nominal tax rate versus what someone actually winds up paying after various deductions an loopholes. An earlier study by the same authors of this latest publication that the NYT is citing indicates that those in the top 1% were paying around 40% in 1950. Based on that, I find the claim that those at the very top paid 70% in 1950 to be highly doubtful. Am I right about this? Well, I guess I'll have to wait a week for this latest book to be published, or until the NYT issues a correction. The earlier study from these same authors, which was cited in the link I posted above, can be found at: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/2/553/4430651/ https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/2/553/4430651/