11 ms·

What? When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. We don’t need “

What? When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. We don’t need “the elite” - they don’t actually “create jobs”, and the “engine of the economy” is just a convenient vehicle for the rich (and private equity) to ruin the middle class further - it was never about “efficient markets”. If anything what we’ve seen over the last 40 years is that we need better systems.

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
There is some benefit from having a pool of people with enough funds to take investment risks that the rank and file can't. They can outmaneuver any planned economy. The problem in the US is that those people have engineered themselves a disproportionate wealth disparity that doesn't generate a collective benefit.
- alkakKnbhhh 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - blacksmith_tb 1y ago
    That's a novel take on diversity, but I think your window is too small. The US was full of similar anti-immigrant sentiment a century ago, directed at southern and eastern European new arrivals. Today no one is calling for Poles and Italians to be deported. The "melting pot" can work, if no one is actively trying to kick it over.
  - analognoise 1y ago
    Considering our success so far, it’s obvious it’s succeeding. You’d have to ignore your eyes and ears to think a multiracial secular democratic country can succeed. What’s amazing is that racists seem to be trying to screw it up on purpose, then to claim it doesn’t work. “Starve the beast” but for social cohesion. They’re always surprised when they get bitten by the monster they created. The rich never had “noblesse oblige” - we used to shoot at the factory owner when they didn’t pay us. I’m not sure what to do with such a limited understanding of history and such an obvious blind spot as this, but then I remember: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
- analognoise 1y ago
  That used to be “industrial policy” - it doesn’t need to be individuals at all. In fact it shouldn’t be - they’re concerned with returns, not jobs and certainly not with any technology that requires a longer timespan to complete. The Biden administration had excellent industrial policy. Trump had the government steal a 10% share of Intel. Watching people realize he’s just a criminal loser has been heartening.
andsoitis 1y ago
> When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. I think you got this wrong. According to my sources the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6%. It was during the 50s, 60s, and 70s that it never dipped below 70%. Source: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx#:~:text=During%20the%201990s%2C%20the%20top,percent%20from%202003%20to%202010. https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... The other thing is that different dimensions of the economy and other societal aspect have different lagging effects so you cannot simply assume causation or correlation between things during the same time frame.
- didgetmaster 1y ago
  The 'tax the rich' crowd loves to quote the top marginal rates from 50 years ago; but did anyone ever really pay those rates? Tax shelters were common in those days with the rich paying accountants and tax attorneys to find ways of avoiding those astronomical rates.
  - analognoise 1y ago
    Some people tried to evade the system - that’s why we have helicopters. We can just grab them and bring them to court, no problem. I don’t think “some people didn’t abide the rules” is reason not to make sensible laws.
    - crossbody 1y ago
      Yeah, sure, helicopters is all you need to catch millions of sophisticated tax evaders using semi-legal loopholes developed and implemented by professional accountants and lawyers. Read about Laffer Curve for a start.
      - immibis 1y ago
        > Read about Laffer Curve Your comment lost all credibility right here

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

There is some benefit from having a pool of people with enough funds to take investment risks that the rank and file can't. They can outmaneuver any planned economy. The problem in the US is that those people have engineered themselves a disproportionate wealth disparity that doesn't generate a collective benefit.

alkakKnbhhh 1y ago
[flagged]
- blacksmith_tb 1y ago
  That's a novel take on diversity, but I think your window is too small. The US was full of similar anti-immigrant sentiment a century ago, directed at southern and eastern European new arrivals. Today no one is calling for Poles and Italians to be deported. The "melting pot" can work, if no one is actively trying to kick it over.
- analognoise 1y ago
  Considering our success so far, it’s obvious it’s succeeding. You’d have to ignore your eyes and ears to think a multiracial secular democratic country can succeed. What’s amazing is that racists seem to be trying to screw it up on purpose, then to claim it doesn’t work. “Starve the beast” but for social cohesion. They’re always surprised when they get bitten by the monster they created. The rich never had “noblesse oblige” - we used to shoot at the factory owner when they didn’t pay us. I’m not sure what to do with such a limited understanding of history and such an obvious blind spot as this, but then I remember: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
analognoise 1y ago
That used to be “industrial policy” - it doesn’t need to be individuals at all. In fact it shouldn’t be - they’re concerned with returns, not jobs and certainly not with any technology that requires a longer timespan to complete. The Biden administration had excellent industrial policy. Trump had the government steal a 10% share of Intel. Watching people realize he’s just a criminal loser has been heartening.

andsoitis 1y ago

> When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. I think you got this wrong. According to my sources the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6%. It was during the 50s, 60s, and 70s that it never dipped below 70%. Source: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx#:~:text=During%20the%201990s%2C%20the%20top,percent%20from%202003%20to%202010. https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... The other thing is that different dimensions of the economy and other societal aspect have different lagging effects so you cannot simply assume causation or correlation between things during the same time frame.

didgetmaster 1y ago
The 'tax the rich' crowd loves to quote the top marginal rates from 50 years ago; but did anyone ever really pay those rates? Tax shelters were common in those days with the rich paying accountants and tax attorneys to find ways of avoiding those astronomical rates.
- analognoise 1y ago
  Some people tried to evade the system - that’s why we have helicopters. We can just grab them and bring them to court, no problem. I don’t think “some people didn’t abide the rules” is reason not to make sensible laws.
  - crossbody 1y ago
    Yeah, sure, helicopters is all you need to catch millions of sophisticated tax evaders using semi-legal loopholes developed and implemented by professional accountants and lawyers. Read about Laffer Curve for a start.
    - immibis 1y ago
      > Read about Laffer Curve Your comment lost all credibility right here