At a glance, I'm not seeing a big difference in share of wealth between now and 1989. I'm not sure, then, what Robert Reich's point is, to say that the richest 10% "now" hold 60% of the nation's wealth, nor how he can come to the conclusion that it is "eating" the economy alive. Nor what the point is of providing a chonological graph, a graph which doesn't provide any actual percentages, nor a source. He's an accompolished economist, he can do better than that if wants to point out the egregious unfairness of society. Or is this the quality of argument on x.
If the bottom 50% disappeared they would be replaced with migrants in 1 or 2 weeks. If the top 10% disappeared the nation and all it's lifeline systems would cease to exist and the bottom 50% would slowly rot.
We could probably weather the storm of losing the top 0.1%, but, taking a good for the nation perspective, I'd rather that money get distributed to the top 1% than the bottom 50%.
I think finding and transporting 170 million migrants in 2 weeks to replace the bottom 50% would be quite the engineering challenge if at all possible.
Federal Receipts as a Percent of GDP measures total government revenue relative to the size of the economy, serving as a standardized way to track the federal tax burden over time.
Although the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s indeed exceeded 90%, federal receipts hovered around 17% of GDP; this was nearly identical to current levels, because loopholes and high income thresholds (roughly equivalent to $2MM for single/$4MM for couples) meant almost no one actually paid that top rate.
The effective tax rate for the top 1% was closer to 42% rather than 90%, demonstrating that extremely high statutory rates on paper do not necessarily generate proportionally higher government revenue.
there is a lot of things that can happen but taxing wealthy ain’t happening ever again in america. you cannot ever again get elected without them at scale and since they control who gets elected this will always ensure they get their way. it’ll be always a great election campaign issue and maybe there will be some marginal tax thing (e.g. nyc mayor’s plan) but nothing will disturb the wealthy :)
What do you do when folks in expensive places can't eat while folks in low-cost areas are able to live better?
$100 had different spending power in different places. I can buy more beer in Prague than in Indianapolis. I'll buy even less in Oslo. You often get variance within a country too: A gallon of milk (and a lot of other food) is generally cheaper in Indiana than Hawaii.
I'm with you in spirit - we should tax wealthy people - but not in a way that can tax folks that already are struggling. We just don't have global cooperation like that nor are things starting on equal ground to do that sort of simple taxation. But another comment has already touched on that.
90% taxes on people with only 200% of the median wealth seems awfully excessive. For someone with $16,000 in assets, this would leave them with $1,600 -- just 20% of median wealth. I strongly suspect no tax system in history has ever worked like this.
Not to mention that taxes are collected and spent at the national level, not at the global level. If you are proposing a global government that administers taxes worldwide, that is an interesting idea, but it's not exactly a place to "start" a new tax policy, given that there is no political infrastructure in place to support it and likely couldn't be for decades even if the world made a concerted effort to make it happen.
Yeah, and between me and Elon Musk, we're the richest person on earth. There is no way this is evenly distributed among the top 10%, and I'm guessing it's mostly concentrated in the top 0.1%.
reply