5 ms·
As well as tax like we used to in the 50s. (Ok, we can argue about the specifics, but you get the idea)
by nielsbot 1y ago
As well as tax like we used to in the 50s. (Ok, we can argue about the specifics, but you get the idea)
- actionfromafar 1y agoYeah, the regressives (can't call them conservatives anymore with a straight face) never want to go back to that part of the 50s, for some odd reason.
- account42 1y agoThis othersideism helps no one. Your beloved democrats haven't squat to reign in big tech either.
- actionfromafar 1y agoWhat should we do? Where do we go from here?
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoStop trying to pretend that higher taxes on Larry Page or the estate of Steve Jobs would change the size of Google or Apple and instead break them up.
- nielsbot 1y agoWe can (in theory) do both.
- bpt3 1y agoLook at the effective tax rates and get back to me. You have a lot of thoughts on something you know very little about.
- nielsbot 1y agoAre you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates? (Also, I am in favor of closing tax loopholes.)
- bpt3 1y agoNo, I'm saying that the marginal rates you're salivating over produced effective rates on the highest earners that weren't much different from today.
- nielsbot 1y agoBut does that mean we shouldn't raise taxes? "Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II" https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rates-have-fallen-top-one-percent-world-war-ii-0 https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> "Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II" That link has an agenda. Choosing the height of WWII as the baseline is cherry picking. Effective rates were higher during WWII than they were before or since, but that was eight decades ago, not for very long, and for an obvious reason. They're also achieving even that much difference by applying speculative math to capital gains, which is meaningless because doing that in real life would result in major behavioral changes. And it's still not clear how any of that is supposed to solve it. Suppose the founder of MegaCorp has to sell more of their shares to pay the money in tax. They sell them to BlackRock or China or whatever. Is that going to cause MegaCorp's lobbyists to stop trying to capture the government? How? You need there to be more, smaller companies, not change who owns the shares of the predatory megacorps.
- bpt3 1y agoIt just means to me that you haven't put much thought into this. What about the federal government gives you the impression that they'd be responsible stewards of the money you want to confiscate and redistribute?