Mastodawn

SFGrrrl Apr 26, 2023

Qasim Rashid, Esq.

A quick history lesson. From 1940-1980:
•Wealthiest paid 70-94% marginal tax
•0 of them went broke from taxation
•0 of them left USA
•All remained exceedingly wealthy
•Manufacturing boomed
•The middle class was 62% of US economy (It's now 40% post 'trickle down scamenomics)
•We had the strongest middle class growth in US History

Let's do that again. Stop protecting billionaires. Start taxing them.
#TaxBillionaires

Bonnie Schwertner Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid I cannot tell you how many conservatives, with marginal incomes even, have told me how crazy I am for wanting über wealthy to pay their fair share. Most common response is, “Well, how many jobs have YOU created?” As if that gives them the right to coast by.

Qasim Rashid, Esq.Apr 26, 2023

@schfinkes Remind them that 98% of businesses in America have fewer than 100 employees. So they're really talking about 2% of businesses. Moreover, remind them that 100% of billionaire corporations got there with federal tax subsidies and corporate welfare not available to non-billionaires. So they didn't "create" jobs, they also benefitted from corporate welfare. And the LEAST they can do is pay a living wage & pay their blasted taxes.

Bonnie Schwertner Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼❤️

Voron Apr 29, 2023

@QasimRashid @schfinkes The GOP “cuts taxes” on big corporations letting taxes hit small & mid sized biz.

While the Dems regulate small & mid sized biz letting massive loop holes for regulation on large corporations pass.

So big biz wins on both and small & mid sized biz gets screwed on both and market consolidation (monopolization) continues

Sohcahtoa82 Apr 26, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid

It's so stupid, too. I hate that the "job creator" title became a thing.

Rich people don't create jobs. Corporations don't create jobs. You know what creates jobs?

Demand for goods and services.

Businesses hire only as many people as they need to fulfill customer demand. They're not creating jobs and handing out money out of the kindness of their hearts. They're betting that they can pay someone $X to create more than $X in value for themselves.

The railing against taxes for social programs is so short-sighted, too. What happens when their greed has shrunk the middle class so much that there's no more customers able to afford their products?

Geoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Apr 26, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid I work in a school with 6 year groups and about 450 students. So statistically, about 75 a year. Same logic applies to most jobs. As a bartender I provided an environment for career networking, etc, etc, etc.

Jedigal007 Apr 26, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid

Coal miners are a great example

Ron DeSantis's BDE Apr 26, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid
Oil spills "create jobs."
Slavers also "create jobs."

Billionaires look for market opportunities. Jobs are secondary to that goal.

Stargeezer Smith Apr 27, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid
The BS part is that the wealthy create jobs. Demand for products and enough citizens wealth to buy products is what creates jobs.

Patricklee Apr 28, 2023

@stargazersmith @schfinkes @QasimRashid customers and consumers create jobs.

Voron Apr 29, 2023

@schfinkes @QasimRashid While I agree, I’m also more than a little disappointed that while Reagan dropped the top income tax bracket by over 30% and legalized stock buy backs in 1982 (as well as a number of other things) the most the Dems ever even try to do is easier taxes by a few points with a ton of exemptions

Bonnie Schwertner Apr 30, 2023

@QasimRashid @voron Don’t get me started on Reagan. I was co-owner of a small construction business during his terms. Grrr!

Chris L Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid and we went to the moon and ushered in a time of plenty by investing in science as a group.

Author Sharon E. Cathcart ✅Apr 26, 2023

In Peter Guralnick's extensive biography of Elvis Presley, he recounted the story of a reporter who asked Elvis how he felt about having to pay 90% taxes on his income above whatever the threshold was at the time.

Elvis said, "I just write the check and send it off. Those taxes help people in need."

Too bad more people don't understand the concept of noblesse oblige the same way a rock star who grew up poor in Tupelo did.

Earthling Apr 26, 2023

@sharonecathcart @QasimRashid

Elvis' atitude is welcomed, but the important point here is 90% tax rate!
Meanwhile we live in a different tax rate environment "thanks to the GOP, especially R. Reagan and D. Trump.
It seems that the disastrous condition of our human habitat is inversely proportional to the highest tax rates for Billionaires and corporations.
Not good!

🎓 Doc Freemo

🇳🇱Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid I mean, It was abusive and unfair, which is enough reason for me to give it a hard no... **no one** should be taked out of 94% of their income, regardless if they can survive it.

That said, I can pretty much garuntee the whole "0 of them left" and "0 of them went broke" is pure nonsense, you have a source for that?

Dibley Apr 26, 2023

@freemo @QasimRashid I don’t agree low earners should have an awful standard of life so high earners can have an even better standard of life.

Token Sane Person Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid Did they *actually* pay marginal tax rates that high back then? Or were those rates just hiding a lot of tax dodges?

HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴Apr 26, 2023

(1/2)

I agree, Qasim.
I recently wrote a short thread on the development of the #US income-tax rate:

https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/109976532688427491

However, in order to bring the income distribution back to normal, an overhauled inheritance tax, focused on the super-rich, is of the essence to save democracy.

#Montesquieu knew and said so in his 8th book:

"The corruption of each government generally begins with that of the principles."

"When once a #republic is #corrupted, there is no..."

HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴Apr 26, 2023

(2/2)

"...possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles: every other correction is either useless or a new evil."

https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/adef20182019/chapter/4-rousseau/

Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws – ADEF 2018-2019: Republicanism, Federalism and the U.S. Constitution

Brandon Lambert Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid that is actually not true. Perhaps the posted rate were that high but they all played the same games they do no. Virtually none of them paid that much. To fix this we need flat taxes with no deductions. If you have to have your commie “progressive tax” you could set like 4 or 5 tiers of flat rates and we can all just file our taxes on a post card like most of the free world.

Texty the Bard Apr 26, 2023

@comeandtakeit @QasimRashid Flat taxes are inherently a burden on the poor. Marginal rates are meant to be levied not on total income (gross or net) but on *disposable* income. And since the wealthy have a considerably higher percentage of that, then they should be taxed more.

Brandon Lambert Apr 26, 2023

@textualdeviance @QasimRashid They inherently pay more in that 20% of $50MM is much more than 20% of $50,000. In my comment I am yielding to the current desire to have a “progressive tax.” I am just saying do away with the silly deductions and have four fixed rates that change as your income increases. So HHI < $50K is no tax, HHI 50k to 200k is 20%, 200k-500k is 25% and over $500K is 27%. No games. No loopholes. You just pay your percentage based on your HHI an move on. Easy peasy

Texty the Bard Apr 26, 2023

@comeandtakeit You're missing the point.

Imagine it this way: If you make $10/hour, it takes you 30 minutes to afford a $5 gallon of milk.

If you make $1,000/hour, it takes less than a second.

Even if you're buying expensive organic milk straight from a boutique dairy, the price per gallon isn't going to scale that high. Wealthy people have *so much more* disposable income, it makes sense to tax them more on the extra amounts.

Texty the Bard Apr 26, 2023

@comeandtakeit A 20% tax rate on a yearly gross of $75k is a much, much higher burden than even a 40% tax rate on $7.5 million because a much higher percentage of that $75k goes to living expenses. Don't think of it in terms of the raw dollars paid in taxes. Think of it in terms of how much of a bite that puts on the person paying it after they get done paying for their living expenses.

Brandon Lambert Apr 26, 2023

@textualdeviance I feel like you’re arguing just to argue. I ceded to point and and going along with a “progressive tax” even though I don’t like it. I’m just saying have like 4 or five rates and do away with deductions otherwise you can raise the top rate to 90% and you still ain’t getting it because the loopholes are still there.

Brandon Lambert Apr 26, 2023

@textualdeviance bottom line is I shouldn’t have to pay intuit to do my taxes. Just take 20 or 25% and let’s call it good.

Texty the Bard Apr 27, 2023

@comeandtakeit Deductions are how you determine the amount of disposable income, though. I get that the tax code is complicated, and it does need to be streamlined. But not in a way that will put more burden on workers and thereby screw the whole economy.

Texty the Bard Apr 26, 2023

@comeandtakeit Moreover, look at it from the larger economic picture. Giving the already rich more money doesn't actually grow the economy because there are far fewer of them. There are only so many gallons of milk a multimillionaire can buy, compared to what a much larger group of modest-income families will buy. Supply-side economics is an absolute disaster. You can't have sustainable growth without consumers, and you don't have those without workers with enough disposable income to spend.

Texty the Bard Apr 26, 2023

@comeandtakeit I say this, btw, as someone whose household pays more in taxes every year than the national median income. I'm happy to pay my share because the benefits of well-funded public infrastructure and services come back to me.

it's B! Cavello 🐝Apr 27, 2023

@comeandtakeit out of curiosity, do you think tiers of flat rates are better than, say, a smooth nonlinear tax function?

Brandon Lambert Apr 27, 2023

@b_cavello I do because I think it is best to keep it a simple as possible. Not only for ease of use but also because it makes it plain to see to the average tax payer how much is being taken. That allows the taxpayer to make more noise when they feel they are being taken advantage of. Ask the average taxpayer what their rate was last year and they will have no idea. It also gets rid of people getting “returns” greater than what they paid in.

it's B! Cavello 🐝Apr 27, 2023

@comeandtakeit That makes sense. Transparency is helpful (and the whole return thing is kinda goofy 😅 but I do think tax credits can be good so not sure when that ought to happen…)
Thanks for explaining!

Loren Hall Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid YES but to be clear, we don't need that money to spend on what we need - we need for them to NOT have it because income inequality represents a huge security liability for democracy.

The US govt. is the source of all dollars, or else they are counterfeit - billionaires aren't.

Steve Popovich Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid George HW Bush had a great name for the trickle down scam..."voodoo economics".

Alan Trapulionis Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid Is this really accurate? First page of google says ~90% was the highest possible tax rate, but in reality taxes on the wealthy were pretty similar to today

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

Tax Foundation

Miragee Apr 26, 2023

@alantrapulionis @QasimRashid If what you say is true, why does the Nebraska Billionaire, Warren Buffett, want to be required to pay tax at the same rate as his Secretary. He knows taxes on the wealthy are too low.

Alan Trapulionis Apr 26, 2023

@Miragee @QasimRashid I'm not saying anything lol. The author of this thread states that taxes were 90% on the wealthy for 40 years, and then proceeds to draw conclusions. Would be nice to have some context for this massive claim/history lesson

Erik Haugen Apr 26, 2023

@alantrapulionis It's a narrative, of course: "hey income tax is great! look at how wonderful things were in the 50s when we had absurd top rates!"

But reality isn't so simple. I think typical billionaires probably don't and didn't really pay the top rate on a ton of their wealth anyway, so it probably won't matter much if we change it from 37% to 110% in terms of overall revenue.

It's just rhetoric.

Alan Trapulionis Apr 26, 2023

@ech Yeah that's my instinct too. That's why this thread seemed so sus

Erik Haugen Apr 26, 2023

@Miragee Not to speak for Buffett, but I think his point was probably that the tax system is too easy to play. Just think how complex it is: there's a lot there that needs to be fixed.

it's B! Cavello 🐝Apr 27, 2023

@QasimRashid @alantrapulionis this is a cool resource! While I do think that 36 vs 42 is a pretty notable difference (~15%), I also wonder if it could also be quite impactful that the wealthiest people now are just a lot more wealthy, so 42% of today’s top 1% in wealth might yield a lot more $$$ than before.

Zelmo Ziggy Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid https://taxfoundation.org/income-taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Income Taxes on the Top 0.1 Percent Weren’t Much Higher in the 1950s

High marginal income tax rates on the rich were recently proposed. But how much have effective tax rates on the wealthy changed since 1950s?

Tax Foundation

Gargravar Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid did you get that from a kids colouring book on socio-economics?

No evidence. No causation, just weak correlation (hey! The world's in ruins, the USA is the only industrial power untouched by the devastation, but that's got nothing to do with it!)... You might want to look at what happened in East Germany when the Communists nationalised industry. It's a sliding scale. Your disingenuous commentary is pointless. There are advantages and disadvantages. Be honest.

SmokeyGeo Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid the billionaire retirement and disinvestment act? Ensuring no billionaire creates a job again, lacking the tailwind of WWII recovery? And calling for a throwback to low-value manufacturing where the US has been uncompetitive for decades?

Bob Wyman Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid **If markets were competitive and taxes were fair, there would be no billionaires,** although there would still be a good number of people who were massively more wealthy than the average person.

Gen X-Wing Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid Well I don’t mind if they move. I’m ok with that.

KristFist Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid hey 2023, #baconsRebellion called and they and 1929 want their elite cash grab back… https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dangerous-history-podcast/id893725777?i=1000494842593

‎The Dangerous History Podcast: Bacon's Rebellion on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Dangerous History Podcast, Ep Bacon's Rebellion - Oct 15, 2020

Apple Podcasts

Voron Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid also stock but backs were illegal until 1982, after 1982 any tax break for corporations “to spur investment & job growth” just got shoveled right to shareholders instead

HylianTom 🧲Apr 26, 2023

I watch a lot of old tv shows from those decades, and I miss the era where these rich folk would stand there joking about their high tax rates.. all knowing they were living an incredibly blessed life anyway.

Kyle Memoir 🍉🐧Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid Start with Bezos

Zeke Apr 26, 2023

@QasimRashid the middle class began declining by the sixties and this oft-touted golden era post WW2 was predicated on economic activity rebuilding after the wholesale destruction of nations.

Clare Harris 🍁Apr 26, 2023

Worried Democrats aren’t listening to this. Any idea why?

(Aside from many of them taking money from big donors?)

it's B! Cavello 🐝Apr 27, 2023

@QasimRashid the framing around marginal tax rates is super confusing to folks. Maybe we should just switch to talking about the average tax rate…

AT-AT Assault 🏳️‍⚧️Apr 27, 2023

We should not just #TaxBillionaires , we should be more heavily taxing anyone making over 1 Million per year (even in the most oppressive Cost of Living areas, you don't need over 1 million a year).

anubis2814 Apr 27, 2023

@atatassault @QasimRashid Yeah I think one can have $10M in wealth and still be ethical(debatable), but anything above that and you are above the law. $1M/year is much more than $10M in wealth overall.

greenPAl00ka 🏳‍🌈Apr 27, 2023

Luca Salgarelli Apr 27, 2023

@QasimRashid ...and not only in the USA: the entire "western world", in different shades, has been experiencing the same issues.

Token Sane Person Apr 29, 2023

@QasimRashid @kcarruthers

Turns out its more complicated than that. https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html

Hat tip to @mlibby for finding the link.

Did the Rich Really Pay Much Higher Taxes in the 1950s? The Answer Is a Little Complicated.

American progressives like to remember the mid–20th century as a time when the only thing higher than a Cadillac’s tail fin was the top marginal tax rate.

Slate

@QasimRashid I see responses like this and it’s frustrating.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/opinions/income-tax-wealthy-hodge/index.html
Billionaires pay lots of taxes. But the post does not address the fact that the wealth distribution is mind bogglingly lopsided. Looking at bottom line numbers vs what they can afford is a crap response