3 ms·

Feel free to donate to the charity of your choosing then. Forcing citizens to donate to only state approved movements seems coercive.

yndoendo 2y ago
Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? How do you know your taxes are not going where they should? Do you wish for them not to be used to help the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable? Was DARPA's tax payer investment in ARPNET worth it or DOD with GPS? I'm not saying there is abuse in the system, any should be found and dealt with. Nor saying spending should stays the same, money needs to move improve the health, well-being and wealth of non-rich.
- ty6853 2y ago
  The biggest boom and gains in the US arguably happened after the Civil War and before WW1, during which federal tax burden was something like 2% and there was no income tax.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2.5x. Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes. Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive. Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872. * Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
    - ty6853 2y ago
      That is strong evidence post WW2 is a competing nomination. At 2.2 vs 2.5 it is probably down into the noise if they are estimates, especially ones from 1800s. This why I did not provide any quantitative comparison. Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        There is no reason to believe that they would have achieved the same growth rate had they started with a larger economy. As I stated, it is much easier to double growth when you're small and ultimately, growth rate doesn't matter as you can't spend growth rates. Nominal growth matters. The economy increasing by $5.5k per capita (2011 $) in the period after the civil war is a lot less impressive than increasing by $23k after WW2.
  - yndoendo 2y ago
    There was no FDA to protect the health and well-being of US citizens. FDA helped prevent thalidomide coming to market, unlike Europe at the time. Think of all the snake-oil and harmful drugs that where pushed in the time period you are prescribing. [0] That is also the time period of the Labor wars. Those with money and power were miss-treating the average worker. Again goes against the health, well-being, and wealth of the US citizens. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S...
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  You think it was our social investments that brought us wealth in the 50s and 60s and not our massive military spending winning a world war which destroyed every other advanced economy?
- gamblor956 2y ago
  Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? Part of the hilarious hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party is that they long for the glory days of the 1950s...but are completely opposed to the tax policy required to pay for it or the economic and social policies to implement it.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    The dissonance resolves itself when you realize the "glory" they are talking about is not how our society uplifted Americans economically in that era, but how racial and religious hegemony was maintained. I think these particular people would be happy to forego all economic progress made in the last 70 years if it meant they could return to a time when being male, white, straight, and Christian was all it took to be at the top of the social order.
8note 2y ago
id like to stop paying into the US military thank you very much. move it to be a charity, as intended by the founders. why the state sponsored militia, when i could be contributing to some other militia?

yndoendo 2y ago

Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? How do you know your taxes are not going where they should? Do you wish for them not to be used to help the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable? Was DARPA's tax payer investment in ARPNET worth it or DOD with GPS? I'm not saying there is abuse in the system, any should be found and dealt with. Nor saying spending should stays the same, money needs to move improve the health, well-being and wealth of non-rich.

ty6853 2y ago
The biggest boom and gains in the US arguably happened after the Civil War and before WW1, during which federal tax burden was something like 2% and there was no income tax.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2.5x. Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes. Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive. Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872. * Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
  - ty6853 2y ago
    That is strong evidence post WW2 is a competing nomination. At 2.2 vs 2.5 it is probably down into the noise if they are estimates, especially ones from 1800s. This why I did not provide any quantitative comparison. Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      There is no reason to believe that they would have achieved the same growth rate had they started with a larger economy. As I stated, it is much easier to double growth when you're small and ultimately, growth rate doesn't matter as you can't spend growth rates. Nominal growth matters. The economy increasing by $5.5k per capita (2011 $) in the period after the civil war is a lot less impressive than increasing by $23k after WW2.
- yndoendo 2y ago
  There was no FDA to protect the health and well-being of US citizens. FDA helped prevent thalidomide coming to market, unlike Europe at the time. Think of all the snake-oil and harmful drugs that where pushed in the time period you are prescribing. [0] That is also the time period of the Labor wars. Those with money and power were miss-treating the average worker. Again goes against the health, well-being, and wealth of the US citizens. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S...
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
You think it was our social investments that brought us wealth in the 50s and 60s and not our massive military spending winning a world war which destroyed every other advanced economy?
gamblor956 2y ago
Didn't that drive the 1950 & 1960s in the USA? Taxing the rich and giving to the working class to build bridges, schools, GI homes, ... Isn't that classified as the most stable economy in their history? The only decades where the stock market was stable? Part of the hilarious hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party is that they long for the glory days of the 1950s...but are completely opposed to the tax policy required to pay for it or the economic and social policies to implement it.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  The dissonance resolves itself when you realize the "glory" they are talking about is not how our society uplifted Americans economically in that era, but how racial and religious hegemony was maintained. I think these particular people would be happy to forego all economic progress made in the last 70 years if it meant they could return to a time when being male, white, straight, and Christian was all it took to be at the top of the social order.

8note 2y ago

id like to stop paying into the US military thank you very much. move it to be a charity, as intended by the founders. why the state sponsored militia, when i could be contributing to some other militia?