By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chrkeller said:
zorg1000 said:

What changed in terms of culture/human behavior that means we needed to have lower taxes in order to remain the richest country?

During the 40s-70s, the US was about 5-6% of the global population and the richest country so not sure how that supports that we are currently doing something right that we previously weren’t.


https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

Pretty much lays out that from the mid 40s-mid 70s (post-war economic boom/golden age of capitalism), income grew at the same rate across the income spectrum. Inflation adjusted income went up about 100% for the median household along with the top 5% of households.

Since that point (Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts), inflation adjusted income has gone up just under 50% for the median household but a bit over 100% for the top 5% of households.

It also shows that since 1979 (Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts), income after taxes and transfers went up 73% for the middle 60% (middle class) while it went up 326% for the top 1% (the rich).

It’s not about people wanting to make drastic changes, it’s about people seeing that we had a system that was making life better for the average citizen and wanting to go back to that. We were the richest, strongest, most innovative country back then and we still are so I don’t see how slashing taxes over the last ~40 years has done anything but hurt the working/middle class while stuffing the pockets of the rich and causing the federal debt to skyrocket.

So I am happy to address the two bolded points.

1) technology.  back in the 50s community was strong because people went outside and talked with each other.  Today everyone is behind a screen and I think the sense of community isn't as strong, which makes it a challenge to sell community as a selling point.  

2) Honestly, I am not against adjustments.  Personally, I think all income should be taxed as ordinary income.  My issue with the left is "tax the rich."  What is rich?  How much are we going to tax them?  Honestly it comes off as Trump like to me, make claim with zero details (which isn't a plan) and claim it the best.    

1. That actually makes a lot of sense, since that time period people have become much more individualistic which could explain the mindset of “does this benefit me?” rather than “does this benefit society?”

2. I can’t speak for the “left” as a whole but my view on taxes is basically that the Bush & Trump cuts were a mistake and the Clinton era rates found a healthy balance that allowed us to have a budget surplus while also being able to increase spending on infrastructure, education, healthcare and create the Child Tax Credit.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

With the exception of one time spending bills to combat the Great Recession & COVID-19, these tax cuts are responsible for 90% of the increase to the debt ratio. We had found the sweet spot of taxes rates that allowed for a balanced budget, the economy to thrive and continue to invest in things that help the working class……we threw that all away so rich people could get richer.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.