The real reason for street protests in the US

[SLD]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

SLD

 

[Harry Bosch]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

SLD

I agree that the income disparity is a problem. But difference is that I'd rather find solutions to life people up, not bring people down. I think that a wealth tax is the lazy way to solve the problem (not that it will work much).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

Tax rates were never 70%. The left loves to toss around those high numbers while ignoring the fact that back then the tax code contained loopholes you could drive a 18 wheeler through, coupled with a lack of computer power to cross check things and expose cheating.

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

 

[Politesse]

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

The policies we have now are emperiling the perceived legitimacy of the entire state...

 

[Derec]

There certainly seems to be something more going on that some ex-con dying while restrained.

I think a lot of it is Corona Madness though.

 

[RVonse]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

Totally agree.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

Consider this. Trump is more like FDR than unlike each other. Both of them were:
1. Extremely rich people born of wealth and familiar with capitalism.

2. Populous leaders.

3. Communicated directly with Americans. Roosevelt used fireside chats and Trump using Twitter.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, the same old worn-out Leftist Slogans don't tell us the "real reason" for anything.

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06


But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system.

No, most people do not riot, no matter how little "stake" they have. Don't pander to the tiny minority of criminals at these protests and protect them by saying we all do what they do. There would be nothing wrong with shooting the ones who engage in destruction and violence, in order to stop them from corrupting the legitimate function served by the protests, and to stop the damage they do which ends up costing more lives than would be lost if the cops would simply shoot the looters, wearing their body cameras and recording it.

Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, . . .

That's false. They do benefit from the system. They couldn't survive without it.

. . . might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

So you think the protesters were dumb brutes who don't have a clue why they were really protesting?

No, each of them individually knew why they protested. As a collective, the good they served was to provide entertainment to 300 million American spectators (or a couple billion spectators worldwide), because most of us enjoy the scenes of the buildings burning and the chaos, and -- who knows? -- maybe that entertainment is really the point, so everything's really OK.

Inequality is what caused the Great Depression.

No it isn't. The immediate cause of the '29 Crash was the extreme stock buying, running up debt out-of-control in order to invest more and more.

And then the Recession of 1929-30 was made much worse, and longer, by some other bad policies of the 20s and 30s: such as very high tariff increases in the 20s followed by Smoot-Hawley in '30, which by all accounts greatly increased the damage; and by extreme federal deficits, unprecedented in peace time, beginning in 1932 (before FDR) and then higher still in the following years; and also by extreme crackdown on immigrant labor in the 1920s, depriving business of beneficial low-cost labor, which had been helping to grow the economy going back many decades; also by artificially-high wage levels agreed to by big business under pressure from President Hoover who did more to intervene in business following a crash than any previous president in the many earlier recessions/stock market crashes.

We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000.

What we need is to slowly increase the rates on the higher income levels, not suddenly thrust it up twice as high. But more importantly, we need to eliminate income tax on the lower income levels, perhaps up to about 1/2 of the population to pay NO INCOME TAX at all.

And we need to rely LESS on income tax and more on some other taxes:

• Progressive property tax

• Tax on Wall Street (tax on stock buying/selling)

• Higher gasoline tax

And perhaps on some other more efficient forms of getting revenue than reliance on income tax, which is the most corrupt tax and subject to evasion.

We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened.

But the problem with that is that Antitrust policy is fundamentally based on a basic principle that Americans are more and more turning against: the benefit of competition.

Don't the policies have to be based on Reason, or logic, and facts?

The only point of Antitrust policy is to force companies to be more competitive, which includes forcing them to reduce their prices and costs, which benefits consumers (which is the point).

And yet this philosophy is rejected by labor unions and Leftist Economics today, in favor of protectionism, China-bashing, and wage-fixing, which makes no more sense than price-fixing, because it drives up prices consumers must pay.

If you can't get the fundamentals right, about the benefit of free market and free trade and competition and the law of supply-and-demand, and instead constantly promote knee-jerk anti-market schemes, picking winners-and-losers, which hurt consumers in favor of Big Labor and recipients of corporate welfare and other special interests, then you can't give any logical reason to promote an increased Antitrust policy.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

No, we don't need another Messiah-Demagogue. Those already have been part of the problem, not the solution. E.g., FDR's historically-high deficits, contradicting what he promised as a candidate, when he condemned Hoover for it, and then resorting to it himself, to gain the instant-gratification benefit and causing long-term damage to the economy (like demagogue Trump's record-high deficits (before the Pandemic) which produced instant gratification).

 

[ruby sparks]

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

The policies we have now are emperiling the perceived legitimacy of the entire state...

No! Everything’s working fine. There’s good trickle down and everything! The rising tide is lifting all boats.

Kidding.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, most people do not riot, no matter how little "stake" they have. Don't pander to the tiny minority of criminals at these protests and protect them by saying we all do what they do. There would be nothing wrong with shooting the ones who engage in destruction and violence, in order to stop them from corrupting the legitimate function served by the protests, and to stop the damage they do which ends up costing more lives than would be lost if the cops would simply shoot the looters, wearing their body cameras and recording it.




That's false. They do benefit from the system. They couldn't survive without it.

. . . might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

So you think the protesters were dumb brutes who don't have a clue why they were really protesting?

No, each of them individually knew why they protested. As a collective, the good they served was to provide entertainment to 300 million American spectators (or a couple billion spectators worldwide), because most of us enjoy the scenes of the buildings burning and the chaos, and -- who knows? -- maybe that entertainment is really the point, so everything's really OK.

Inequality is what caused the Great Depression.

No it isn't. The immediate cause of the '29 Crash was the extreme stock buying, running up debt out-of-control in order to invest more and more.

And then the Recession of 1929-30 was made much worse, and longer, by some other bad policies of the 20s and 30s: such as very high tariff increases in the 20s followed by Smoot-Hawley in '30, which by all accounts greatly increased the damage; and by extreme federal deficits, unprecedented in peace time, beginning in 1932 (before FDR) and then higher still in the following years; and also by extreme crackdown on immigrant labor in the 1920s, depriving business of beneficial low-cost labor, which had been helping to grow the economy going back many decades; also by artificially-high wage levels agreed to by big business under pressure from President Hoover who did more to intervene in business following a crash than any previous president in the many earlier recessions/stock market crashes.

We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000.

What we need is to slowly increase the rates on the higher income levels, not suddenly thrust it up twice as high. But more importantly, we need to eliminate income tax on the lower income levels, perhaps up to about 1/2 of the population to pay NO INCOME TAX at all.

And we need to rely LESS on income tax and more on some other taxes:

• Progressive property tax

• Tax on Wall Street (tax on stock buying/selling)

• Higher gasoline tax

And perhaps on some other more efficient forms of getting revenue than reliance on income tax, which is the most corrupt tax and subject to evasion.

We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened.

But the problem with that is that Antitrust policy is fundamentally based on a basic principle that Americans are more and more turning against: the benefit of competition.

Don't the policies have to be based on Reason, or logic, and facts?

The only point of Antitrust policy is to force companies to be more competitive, which includes forcing them to reduce their prices and costs, which benefits consumers (which is the point).

And yet this philosophy is rejected by labor unions and Leftist Economics today, in favor of protectionism, China-bashing, and wage-fixing, which makes no more sense than price-fixing, because it drives up prices consumers must pay.

If you can't get the fundamentals right, about the benefit of free market and free trade and competition and the law of supply-and-demand, and instead constantly promote knee-jerk anti-market schemes, picking winners-and-losers, which hurt consumers in favor of Big Labor and recipients of corporate welfare and other special interests, then you can't give any logical reason to promote an increased Antitrust policy.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

No, we don't need another Messiah-Demagogue. Those already have been part of the problem, not the solution. E.g., FDR's historically-high deficits, contradicting what he promised as a candidate, when he condemned Hoover for it, and then resorting to it himself, to gain the instant-gratification benefit and causing long-term damage to the economy.

Some of that is just bollocks.

Shooting people on the streets would be ok to deter others, and to protect the economy?

It’s a huge over-reaction, in the circumstances, and even if it wasn’t, it would probably make things worse instead of better in the long run anyway, especially in a democracy and a relatively free country, especially one where there are lots and lots of guns, so it’s not even pragmatic. It’s a dumb, short term solution derived from a shallow and flawed analysis of the issues involved, imo, in this case.

 

[ruby sparks]

Open question: could someone not come up with some sort of effective and safe and fast-acting temporary tranquilliser darts for humans, perhaps in conjunction with literally indelible dye?

I’m not saying it would be a silver bullet. But better than shooting people dead. Just capture them. Add in video footage. Voila. Looters (some at least) caught and can be punished.

Could even add in a tiny tracker device, in case other looters carry away their unconscious comrade. Not that looters necessarily see each other as comrades.

Only to be an option in severe and justifiable circumstances, where other options not feasible.

 

[barbos]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

SLD

I agree that the income disparity is a problem. But difference is that I'd rather find solutions to life people up, not bring people down. I think that a wealth tax is the lazy way to solve the problem (not that it will work much).

90% tax rate would be tacit admission that all rich people are thieves. Many of them are, but not all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

SLD

I agree that the income disparity is a problem. But difference is that I'd rather find solutions to life people up, not bring people down. I think that a wealth tax is the lazy way to solve the problem (not that it will work much).

90% tax rate would be tacit admission that all rich people are thieves. Many of them are, but not all.

Nah! It's just that you're biased since you know Putin so well! Seriously, why do you think that all rich people are thieves?

 

[barbos]

90% tax rate would be tacit admission that all rich people are thieves. Many of them are, but not all.

Nah! It's just that you're biased since you know Putin so well! Seriously, why do you think that all rich people are thieves?

I specifically said I don't think that.

 

[SLD]

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

The policies we have now are emperiling the perceived legitimacy of the entire state...

Exactly. We’ve listened to this siren song of low marginal tax rates for decades, and the only thing we’ve seen is a huge rise in income disparity not seen since the gilded age. We’re turning into a third world country. And we can expect similar problems.

When FDR raised taxes on the wealthy, did it tank the economy? No. It soared. Clinton famously raised taxes on the wealthy, although not nearly enough. What happened? The economy soared. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy ultimately collapsed. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. Higher marginal tax rates are generally associated with a stronger economy. They do not disincentivize work as neocons argue. Throughout the 50’s we had 90% marginal tax rates and the economy boomed. I realize people didn’t likely pay that high a rate, but they had to take other socially productive actions with their money to avoid that rate. They also still paid something like 65% of their income. They paid far more than the paltry 9% that Romney paid when he revealed his taxes, or the average of about 18% that the top 1% pay. Remember that most laboring people pay 15% right off the top with no deductions for SS tax, and then about an additional 20% or more in regular taxes. Rich people don’t have to pay SS taxes because they classify all of their income as LTCG and because of the caps. Warren Buffet famously pointed out that his tax rates were far less than his secretary’s. Our tax policies are absurd and counterproductive. They have caused resentment and it boils over into destruction and violence.

Another example of this is Trump’s tax cuts. What did companies do with theirs? They gave a paltry 2% to workers and then put 98% into stock buy backs resulting in billions for senior executives and maybe a one time $300 check to the average worker. And you expect them to be grateful?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

The policies we have now are emperiling the perceived legitimacy of the entire state...

Exactly. We’ve listened to this siren song of low marginal tax rates for decades, and the only thing we’ve seen is a huge rise in income disparity not seen since the gilded age. We’re turning into a third world country. And we can expect similar problems.

When FDR raised taxes on the wealthy, did it tank the economy? No. It soared. Clinton famously raised taxes on the wealthy, although not nearly enough. What happened? The economy soared. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy ultimately collapsed. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. Higher marginal tax rates are generally associated with a stronger economy. They do not disincentivize work as neocons argue. Throughout the 50’s we had 90% marginal tax rates and the economy boomed. I realize people didn’t likely pay that high a rate, but they had to take other socially productive actions with their money to avoid that rate. They also still paid something like 65% of their income. They paid far more than the paltry 9% that Romney paid when he revealed his taxes, or the average of about 18% that the top 1% pay. Remember that most laboring people pay 15% right off the top with no deductions for SS tax, and then about an additional 20% or more in regular taxes. Rich people don’t have to pay SS taxes because they classify all of their income as LTCG and because of the caps. Warren Buffet famously pointed out that his tax rates were far less than his secretary’s. Our tax policies are absurd and counterproductive. They have caused resentment and it boils over into destruction and violence.

Another example of this is Trump’s tax cuts. What did companies do with theirs? They gave a paltry 2% to workers and then put 98% into stock buy backs resulting in billions for senior executives and maybe a one time $300 check to the average worker. And you expect them to be grateful?

I go back and forth on deficit spending. But how would taxes of any kind (which takes cash out of the economy, reducing the deficit) help the local economy? Secondly, where is your source that 98% of the stimulus went to stock buy backs?

 

[SLD]

Exactly. We’ve listened to this siren song of low marginal tax rates for decades, and the only thing we’ve seen is a huge rise in income disparity not seen since the gilded age. We’re turning into a third world country. And we can expect similar problems.

When FDR raised taxes on the wealthy, did it tank the economy? No. It soared. Clinton famously raised taxes on the wealthy, although not nearly enough. What happened? The economy soared. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy ultimately collapsed. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. Higher marginal tax rates are generally associated with a stronger economy. They do not disincentivize work as neocons argue. Throughout the 50’s we had 90% marginal tax rates and the economy boomed. I realize people didn’t likely pay that high a rate, but they had to take other socially productive actions with their money to avoid that rate. They also still paid something like 65% of their income. They paid far more than the paltry 9% that Romney paid when he revealed his taxes, or the average of about 18% that the top 1% pay. Remember that most laboring people pay 15% right off the top with no deductions for SS tax, and then about an additional 20% or more in regular taxes. Rich people don’t have to pay SS taxes because they classify all of their income as LTCG and because of the caps. Warren Buffet famously pointed out that his tax rates were far less than his secretary’s. Our tax policies are absurd and counterproductive. They have caused resentment and it boils over into destruction and violence.

Another example of this is Trump’s tax cuts. What did companies do with theirs? They gave a paltry 2% to workers and then put 98% into stock buy backs resulting in billions for senior executives and maybe a one time $300 check to the average worker. And you expect them to be grateful?

I go back and forth on deficit spending. But how would taxes of any kind (which takes cash out of the economy, reducing the deficit) help the local economy? Secondly, where is your source that 98% of the stimulus went to stock buy backs?

First taxes do not take money out of the economy. They actually put money into the economy. They take money that rich people are not using and give it to others who spend it thus generating growth. The money always goes somewhere. Even if it reduces the deficit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/com...-led-by-buyback-monsters-like-home-depot.html

Home Depot received about $15 billion in tax cuts thanks to Trump. They gave about $300 million to workers, with the typical hourly wage worker getting about $300 or so. Managers got more. All based on their income. Many other companies did the same or similar.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Exactly. We’ve listened to this siren song of low marginal tax rates for decades, and the only thing we’ve seen is a huge rise in income disparity not seen since the gilded age. We’re turning into a third world country. And we can expect similar problems.

When FDR raised taxes on the wealthy, did it tank the economy? No. It soared. Clinton famously raised taxes on the wealthy, although not nearly enough. What happened? The economy soared. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy ultimately collapsed. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. Higher marginal tax rates are generally associated with a stronger economy. They do not disincentivize work as neocons argue. Throughout the 50’s we had 90% marginal tax rates and the economy boomed. I realize people didn’t likely pay that high a rate, but they had to take other socially productive actions with their money to avoid that rate. They also still paid something like 65% of their income. They paid far more than the paltry 9% that Romney paid when he revealed his taxes, or the average of about 18% that the top 1% pay. Remember that most laboring people pay 15% right off the top with no deductions for SS tax, and then about an additional 20% or more in regular taxes. Rich people don’t have to pay SS taxes because they classify all of their income as LTCG and because of the caps. Warren Buffet famously pointed out that his tax rates were far less than his secretary’s. Our tax policies are absurd and counterproductive. They have caused resentment and it boils over into destruction and violence.

Another example of this is Trump’s tax cuts. What did companies do with theirs? They gave a paltry 2% to workers and then put 98% into stock buy backs resulting in billions for senior executives and maybe a one time $300 check to the average worker. And you expect them to be grateful?

I go back and forth on deficit spending. But how would taxes of any kind (which takes cash out of the economy, reducing the deficit) help the local economy? Secondly, where is your source that 98% of the stimulus went to stock buy backs?

First taxes do not take money out of the economy. They actually put money into the economy. They take money that rich people are not using and give it to others who spend it thus generating growth. The money always goes somewhere. Even if it reduces the deficit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/com...-led-by-buyback-monsters-like-home-depot.html

Home Depot received about $15 billion in tax cuts thanks to Trump. They gave about $300 million to workers, with the typical hourly wage worker getting about $300 or so. Managers got more. All based on their income. Many other companies did the same or similar.

Sorry, but this isn't correct. An increase in taxes does not equal higher distribution to workers. I'm not sure why you think this. To increase taxes decreases the deficit (which has some positive effects). But it doesn't directly lead to "money always going somewhere". There isn't a direct relationship between taxes and spending. In fact, often times spending goes up while taxes are going down.

 

[Elixir]

It’s the same as street protests around the world. The same reason Trump won election. Decades of growing income inequality and the rise of a plutocratic class. See the infamous Powell memo.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

Nouriel Roubini, once again, hits the nail on the head. It’s amazing to me that the people who support Trump, are just like the people who are protesting him. I’ve heard it from many people who support him, they just wanted to say fuck you to the ruling elites. Of course he’s fucked them over but he’s also fucked the establishment so they love him all the more.

But people riot, not just protest, when they have no stake in the system. Why shouldn’t they? The system doesn’t benefit them, might as well tear it down. Police brutality was just a spark.

Until we get a grip on this issue, we will continue to see a slide towards autocracy and possible economic collapse. The protests will just lead to more repression and backlash and create a vicious circle. Inequality is what caused the Great Depression. We need to rid ourselves of this notion that low marginal tax rates are an economic cure all. In fact, Democratic proposals like Warren’s wealth tax or even AOC’s tax proposal don’t go nearly far enough. We need to see marginal tax rates back to 70% on income over $1,000,000, not $10,000,000. We need a much more robust Antitrust policy. Changes in antitrust law have gutted it and few people realize what has happened. We actually need less securities regulations, or at least major overhaul of them. Shareholders actually have too much power, and since the early 70’s, College business courses have emphasized that shareholders are the only concern of management, and other stakeholders such as workers, customers or the communities in which they operate are irrelevant. All that needs to change.

I guess we need a 21st Century equivalent of FDR, but I don’t see anyone even remotely like that anywhere on the political horizon.

SLD

I agree that the income disparity is a problem. But difference is that I'd rather find solutions to life people up, not bring people down. I think that a wealth tax is the lazy way to solve the problem (not that it will work much).

There's a limit to how much you can lift anyone up when a tiny fraction of the population hoards most of the resources available to the entire population. I don't think any multi-billionaire needs to feel "brought down" if making even more billions becomes more difficult than it is now. For than matter, same for millionaires. I know enough people who have gone from broke/indebted startups to personal wealth in the millions, to know that making the first million is ten times harder than the 5th million and a hundred times harder than the 100th million. I don't personally know any billionaires, but my understanding is that the same thing applies.
It shouldn't be that way.

 

[SLD]

First taxes do not take money out of the economy. They actually put money into the economy. They take money that rich people are not using and give it to others who spend it thus generating growth. The money always goes somewhere. Even if it reduces the deficit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/com...-led-by-buyback-monsters-like-home-depot.html

Home Depot received about $15 billion in tax cuts thanks to Trump. They gave about $300 million to workers, with the typical hourly wage worker getting about $300 or so. Managers got more. All based on their income. Many other companies did the same or similar.

Sorry, but this isn't correct. An increase in taxes does not equal higher distribution to workers. I'm not sure why you think this. To increase taxes decreases the deficit (which has some positive effects). But it doesn't directly lead to "money always going somewhere". There isn't a direct relationship between taxes and spending. In fact, often times spending goes up while taxes are going down.

It’s far more likely that a dollar in tax will go to someone working and then be spent than back into some rich dudes purse. The tax dollar will go somewhere, be it some low level GS employee, a military officer, a construction project and then to a construction worker, or a retiree. Consumer spending is a key part of the life of the economy, and lower and middle class are far more likely to spend money instead of stock it away. There’s only so much underwear or food one needs. So tax dollars are recycled into the economy in a variety of ways. Again, it is not lost. That’s just a right wing myth.

WRT deficit spending,the government can do that, but there are limits. Someone has to buy that debt, and excessive government debt is bad for the economy. Debt reduction still means the tax dollar goes back into somebody’s circulation, although right now that’s likely some guy in China. That’s a different issue.

 

[Elixir]

Tax rates were never 70%. The left loves to toss around those high numbers while ignoring the fact that back then the tax code contained loopholes you could drive a 18 wheeler through, coupled with a lack of computer power to cross check things and expose cheating.

Policies like you espouse would severely damage our economy.

Wrong. During the Eisenhower administration the top tax bracket nominal rate was 90%. It was 94% during WWII, and people in that top bracket were pursued and sometimes publicly demonized if they attempted to evade paying it during the war - it was a patriotism thing y'know. In the post-war years, more and more "cheating" opportunities were developed and instituted, and the marginal rate has fallen to less than half, while compliance with the 39% top rate is worse today among both individuals and Corporations (which are subject to an effective rate of only 18.6%) than it was in the 40s and 50s..
The results speak for themselves.
"Our economy" isn't threatened by a doubling of the top marginal rate, THEIR economy is.