Class warfare? We certainly have enough of it here. The most obvious to me, being the largest group under assault, is the middle class, this country being blessed with an enormous middle class compared to most countries. During the 1950's and until 1964, the top marginal rate for income taxes was around 90% on income over $300,000. In 1964, the top rate dropped to 70% on incomes over $100,000 to $180,000, depending on how you filed. That continued, with tiny adjustments, until Reagan began his destruction of the tax system of the United States as it had been known during arguably the longest, most wide spread economic boom this country has experienced in modern times. In other words, what would be seen as astonishingly high marginal tax rates to those who have only known Reagan's Tax Cut Party were part and parcel of a huge increase in wealth and prosperity for the American middle class. A middle class being squeezed today by absurdly low tax rates for the wealthy, while carrying the largest burden of helping those less fortunate, since the tiny minority of the super rich are still reveling in their good fortune, much of it overseas and avoiding US taxes. Aren't they lucky?
Not sure if that is the absolute conclusion. If the government says, you cannot make money in the US unless you pay the same tax rates as everybody else, go take your business somewhere else and see if you can make the same amount of profit. Remember, US is the biggest consumer of all countries. You don't think their net profit will go down 50% if they don't so business in the US?
The graph is the dichotomy between Sanders and Trump. Sanders would fight the rich, and Trump would fight the freeloaders. Fighting freeloaders is the essence of populism. Anyway, I don't believe in class warfare. I'd call it a negotiation. 'Warfare' suggests its a zero-sum game in which the two sides cannot coexist. Dekulakization was class warfare. When you tweak tax policy or minimum wage, that's not war. That's just negotiation. In a negotiation, both sides can win. Each side needs the other and wants to coexist. The friction only comes on setting the terms -- how much does each party get. But, you can have a successful negotiation and maybe everybody is a little unhappy about concessions they had to make, but nobody prefers to not have a deal at all. This is what we have in the US and it works.
I do not think Sander's way of doing it is correct. However, if you get rid of all the freeloaders in the system, the average family will not see significant increase in living standard, because vast majority of the wealth is concentrated at the top. It would be like trying to balance the budget but ignoring defense spending and medicare.
From what I've read though, the average effective tax rate for the rich in 1960 is not that different when compared to today. Also I think the economic boom we experienced from the 50s to the 60s had a lot to do with the fact that we had no competition (European economic & industrial base in ruins, Japan economic & industrial base in ruins, South Korea a non-factor, China a non-factor)
Life expectancy of poor is shorter because of poor nutrition and dietary habits, all approved by the FDA. The rich actually carry more stress throughout their lives , but manage it better.
Where are you getting this information? The effective tax rate for both bottom earners and middle class today is much much lower when compared to the 50s. Also what do you mean that the middle class is carrying the largest burden of helping the less fortunate? The top 10% while earning 45% of the total income is paying almost 70% of the total federal income tax
****ing bull****, you have no idea what you're talking about. ****ing medicaid is a joke. The system is designed to ensure that the most expensive drugs are hidden behind the guise of prior authorizations or red tape. I write a script for vascepa, pulmicort, <insert expensive drug here> and the insurance provider refuses to fill it regardless of what the medical reasoning is. Try x drug for 2 months, then y drug for 3 months, then we will maybe consider trying z drug (protip: they won't). Being told you need to prior authorize *anything* and attempt to do so by calling x 800# which forwards you to another 800# which forwards you to another 800#, which forwards you to a website in which you need to upload and fax a document, which conveniently is never received. The reason the poor die sooner is because they don't have access to the same drugs and procedures as the rich. End of story. The poor have less stress than the rich?? Lol. It's all relative to what you define stress as. If you consider the cable being down a stressor then sure. Being unsure about if you'll be able to feed and shelter your children is a different kind of stress.
The reason the poor die sooner is often because they are more likely to spend time around other poor people who will hurt them along with being more likely to make stupid life decisions that hurt them, along with lacking the funds to buy their way out of the trouble they get themselves into. I think it's hilarious how some people romanticize the poor but more often than not, the truly poor are poor because of things they've done or things they should have done that they did not do. There's way too much opportunity in this country for that nonsense. You can have a completely unskilled immigrant come to this country not even knowing the language with little more than the clothes on their back and end up a middle class business owner within a decade, I've known several examples of it personally. Sure it sucks to be truly poor, but clearly it doesn't suck enough for people to do the things that will lead to them not being poor in the minds of untold thousands. Of course, people always love to blame others for their misfortunes so we get the politics of jealousy.
The idea that anyone is poor because they choose it or just didn't work hard enough and is flat out ignorant. "Pull yerself on up by dem bootstraps!" C'mon now. The world isn't fair, not everyone is dealt the same hand and some people have to jump over more hurdles than others and because of that sometimes they don't clear a hurdle and aren't able to get back up. If you really think some kid born to a billionaire has an equal chance of success to some kid born into poverty then there really is no discussing this issue with you. Someone said earlier that revolution is coming if the gap isn't decreased. I don't know if we are that far gone, I don't think times are that desperate for people but history shows that is usually what happens. My guess is that if most people realized that many of their politicians don't work for the actual people but their donors then the more people as a whole will be upset about it, on both sides. A big reason that Trump and Sanders have hit that chord is because they claim not to be a bought politician and that they will work for the people. Neither may win but my guess is that it will build from here on out.
Watch your tone when you talk to me - Don't make me get the belt out and put you in your place. Again, it's all part of a vicious cycle. Poor eat much more ****ty, convenient food lower in nutrition, leads to ailments they don't have the knowledge or time to deal with, and the last phase is the pharmaceutical / insurance industries who collaborate to chokes lam them into their graves. The best medical treatment is prevention, and they never had a chance. Doctors cover symptoms and need chronic cases to keep them in business. Drugs only suppress the inevitable. It's a lifestyle of poor eating habits, nutrition and genetical markers that lead them to sickness. In regards to stress, the poor have strong community ties, low expectations, a strong faith in the unknown and a YOLO mindset that more than make up for financial shortcomings.
Not completely true. For the top quintile, yes, effective tax rates are close to the same. For the top 1% and especially the top 0.1%, effective tax rates are far lower than they were at that time. Mitt Romney had a famously low 14% effective tax rate for the year he showed his returns. Anyone who makes any substantial income from investments (as opposed to with their labor) pays lower effective tax rates as a result. Why exactly should my wife and I pay a higher effective tax rate than Romney does?
What's being projected here? If you don't think a lifestyle of blue collar overwork, or crappy drug habits/life decisions due to misinformation, and poor nutrition habits/overeating are the single largest contributor to low life expectancy, then praise be Allah. Praise, be Allah.
Why would today's effective tax rate for the top 0.1% & richer be far lower today than the 1950s? From the articles that I read, in the 50s there are far more tax loopholes than today and many of the super rich was able to get away with paying no taxes at all. Funnily enough, when the tax rates decreased in the 60s, the amount of income tax collected as % of GDP actually increased. Capital gains tax in the 50s was 25% compared to 20% today (was 15% for Romney's infamous tax return year), there's no reason why someone like Romney that got most of his earnings through capital gains, donated 16% of his income would pay a substantially higher tax rate in the 50s. There's no reason why someone like Romney should pay a lower effective tax rate than a middle class family, but there's also no reason to think of the 50s as some golden age in which the middle class thrived because the super rich paid a much higher tax rate when compared to today. The low capital gains tax rate is problematic though. As expected the top 1% pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 5% which in term pays a higher effective tax rate than the top 10%, the top 10% pay a higher rate than the top 20% etc etc, but due to the capital gains rate & probably donations when you go to the top 0.1%, 0.01% & 0.001% the effective tax rate actually goes down.
The biggest issue is the lowering of the capital gains tax and the estate tax. Why should income from investing your money, or getting it from rich daddy be taxed less than investing your time and labor?
I think the simple answer is because the wealthy make their money that way, and they have so much control in how laws are made or not made.
Agree with you on the capital gains tax...it's just extra income that hasn't been taxed yet. Not sure if that's an apples to apples comparison with estate tax though, which is often times money that has already been taxed, no?
