Taxation and Public Policy - oh just pay your damn taxes and quit whining

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has proposed a 60 to 70% marginal tax rate on the highest income earners. This does not mean that all their income is taxed at this rate but that after income that reaches a certain amount, say ten million, the highest rate will kick in - so it's a marginal tax rate.

She has been roundly condemned and mocked for this on the right wing but let's look at the historical record.

The post-war era was a time of record prosperity and growth. the consumer culture of the time was flourishing and it is estimated by Fortune magazine that the middle class was growing by 1.1 million people a year. The Republican Eisenhower administration expanded social security raised the minimum wage and and introduced taxes on gas to expand public works such as improving the public highway system.

Between 1953 and 1961, the marginal tax rate on top earners reached 91% and fueled what some economists have called a "virtuous cycle of growth." Workers were well paid and had money to stimulate probably the greatest era of growth and prosperity in human history. The economy boomed, the middle class was growing and the nation was able to invest in human capital such as research and development, education and housing.

CEO's of the day earned roughly 20 times that of workers. Compare that with an average of about 200 times today. Income of the top 0.01% percent of Americans was far lower than in the gilded age of the 20's but business still boomed, investment grew and prosperity was widespread.

In 1971, according to the Congressional Research Council, 61% of Americans were considered middle class. By 2018, just over 50% were considered middle class and the figure is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts, while temporarily stimulating the economy and job growth are really just like empty calories boosting a recovering business cycle that has continued for the last nine years. In fact the economy has added jobs for the last 99 months and 2018 was only the third best year for job growth since the recovery began. This growth is really tied to the natural business cycle which typically lasts about ten years.

In fact corporations today are still sitting on vast capital reserves much of which is not invested in growth but used for stock buy-backs in order to inflate net worth and drive up stock prices for share-holders.

With huge capital outlays on military spending and infrastructure, the federal deficit has ballooned by almost 17% to close to a trillion dollars. It is inevitable that social spending will be cut to pay for this. The inevitable outcome will be a government that is running on runaway debt unable to meet the needs of it's citizens or able to function reliably as a partner on the international stage meeting it's commitments on international trade or climate agreements.

The marginal tax rate that Ocasio-Cortez is proposing is not an aberration historically. Far from it. The tax rate we are experiencing today is the aberration and has the potential to dangerously destabilize the country when the current business cycle runs it's course. This is what the marginal tax rate has looked like over the course of the 20th century up to 2008, well before the Trump cuts.



Here is medium family income for roughly the same period:



Over this same time, the productivity of American workers has continually increased yet almost all the gains in productivity have gone to the top 1% of earners and this trend is bound to increase dramatically with Trump's tax cuts over time. Economic growth has continued to rise but American workers have not been seeing the benefit of this rise:



So, in terms of historical data, AOC,s taxation plan is not out of the ordinary at all. Competent government uses tax revenue to invest in human capital and provide infrastructure and services the private sector is not able to as well as to stimulate consumer spending through social security and public spending. The ability of government to play an effective role over the last decades has caused a steep decline in the prosperity and stability of government while enriching the top income earners dramatically.

The Progressive tax policy Ocasio-Cortez is proposing is the first step in changing the down-ward trend in prosperity for American workers and to restore sanity to the role of government in public life. The current budget deficits and national debt is not sustainable over the long run.

https://www.businessinsider.com/his...n-the-first-half-of-the-last-century-though-2

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2017/12/19/eisenhowers-tax-policies-
invested-future-not/ideas/essay/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/04/us-jobs-report-latest-
december-beats-expectations

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/us-budget-deficit/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...years-of-american-economic-history-told-in-1-

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts/

 

1. Excluding the necessary context of all the many tax loopholes and shelters removed by the Reagan Tax Reforms in the process of reducing top marginal rates (that no one paid due to all those loopholes and shelters) is a LIE NARRATIVE.
2. Excluding the necessary context that CEO pay numbers only include .002% of the largest public companies and utterly exclude the other 30,000,000 companies in the U.S. is a LIE NARRATIVE (including such context, true CEO pay is about 10x line pay currently).
3. That the middle class in the U.S. is shrinking is a LIE NARRATIVE (as all such charts and graphs that exclude purchasing power and real wealth, innovation proliferation, the expansion of household assets, the extreme competitive advantage the U.S. had post WW2 in light of not being utterly destroyed by it that led to outlier income gains for U.S. workers during the period, and other necessary context are).
4. That corporate stock buybacks in periods of soaring profitability that can't be readily or wisely reinvested in operational expansion (that is already ongoing as planned) are some nefarious tactic and not rational corporate financial policy is a LIE NARRATIVE.
5. That 401k owners, a vast majority of whom own diversified funds in their accounts as opposed to just their own company's stock, care more about their company's stock price than overall account increases is a LIE NARRATIVE.
6. That AOC or Trump... or even Obama have/had much to do with the soaring debt is a LIE NARRATIVE.

So what's true in the OP? That AOC wants to increase top marginal tax rates to 70%. That's about it.

Oh, one other truth, the link stack at the bottom of OP is 100% LW gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex sourced, you know, the people who just coincidentally are unjustly enriched by tax increases What, no SEIU or CBPP links? Lulz.

 

Says you with nothing to back you up. I documented everything I said in the links and provided graphs. I'll let the documentation speak for itself and hold off for some more interesting comments.

 

We had a "virtuous cycle of growth" in the 50's and 60's due to manufacturing that has all but disappeared.

 

Manufacturing was sure a part of it. Trump says that's coming back and there is some evidence in current job reports but enough to be sustainable?

 

Better be. There's no long term national security without strong manufacturing.

 

For what reason are you ignoring that most of Europe was essentially bombed flat and until the early sixties we had almost zero competition and could still only manage a 3% growth rate until Kennedy's tax cut. Oh and lets also not forget that in the 1950's there was no EPA, endangered species act, DOE or Department of Education in other words the regulatory state in essence did not exist.

 

I have no problem paying more income taxes. We supported the wars - until we didn't. We supported the politicians who refused to pay for them - and still do. My kids sure as hell did not elect these idiots.

 

That's fine, as anyone who has posted here long knows, I have documented the sources of 1,2, and 3 here many times, and nothing you posted grounds 4,5 or 6 in any factual way.

But readers are free to believe whatever they want coming from your 100% Complex-biased links. I can only inform, can't cure gullible or purposeful rationalizations of Complex self-interest.

Ever notice how the answer is always more government, taxes and regulation from the people who profit most from those things? Guess that's just a coincidence.

 

We obviously have an infrastructure problem which needs to be fixed. Much of the military was declared non-operational because of lack of spare parts during the Obama administration. Much of the deficit is due to an effort to repair and replace non-operational equipment. Now the democrats are crying because Trump wants to pull out of Syria. You can't have it both ways. If you want a military in Syria and other parts of the world, it costs money. You can't do it with tanks that won't run and airplanes that can't fly.

 

So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

 

100% falsehood ^ thanks for the block quote though, gets the truth out to more lurkers!

 

I'll try again........................So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

You did not rebut or refute a single citation that was provided by the OP. You essentially said "nuh uh" and it's amusing you think that is in any way a valid argument.

 

[QUOTE

Oh, one other truth, the link stack at the bottom of OP is 100% LW gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex sourced, you know, the people who just coincidentally are unjustly enriched by tax increases What, no SEIU or CBPP links? Lulz.[/QUOTE]

You can argue with the secondary sources for sure but all the figures and stats I provided are from organizations like The Tax Foundation, The Congressional Research Council and the Taxpayers Federation.

The rest of your post is just opinion on your part though calling it lie/narrative would probably be rude on my part.

 

those making over 10 million a year can afford to pay a higher tax then the rest of us

nothing will upset the right more then talking about raising taxes on the 10%

 

100% falsehood ^ and thanks again for the block quote!

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

I'll try again........................So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

You did not rebut or refute a single citation that was provided by the OP. You essentially said "nuh uh" and it's amusing you think that is in any way a valid argument.

Remember folks, when righties try to hand wave away facts and evidence, hold their feet to the fire so everyone can see.

 

100% falsehood ^ and thanks again for the original block quote.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

I'll try again........................So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

You did not rebut or refute a single citation that was provided by the OP. You essentially said "nuh uh" and it's amusing you think that is in any way a valid argument.

Remember folks, when righties try to hand wave away facts and evidence, hold their feet to the fire so everyone can see.

 

I wasn't ignoring but the Marshall Plan still required a huge investment in taxpayer dollars and government investment did it not?

At any rate my point was that a 91% marginal tax rate did not hurt the economy or stifle investment and growth. Rather the opposite, investors want opportunity and if opportunity is there, they will invest and innovate despite the tax rate.

If we were to look at it in todays terms, the opportunity in new, clean energy, infrastructure, modernizing sewage and water and roads are all there for public investment which would not only create jobs and income but stimulate consumer spending as it did in the post-war era.

 

100% falsehood ^ and thanks again for the original block quote.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

I'll try again........................So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

You did not rebut or refute a single citation that was provided by the OP. You essentially said "nuh uh" and it's amusing you think that is in any way a valid argument.

Remember folks, when righties try to hand wave away facts and evidence, hold their feet to the fire so everyone can see.

 

You should probably realize all you are going to get out of this type of poster are these types of diversions and tactics.

Thanks for your comments

 

100% falsehood ^ and thanks again for the original block quote.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

I'll try again........................So do you really think that this hand waving away the evidence in the OP just makes it go away? You did not rebut a single thing that was provided in the OP. You just said "nuh uh" in a very long winded fashion.

You did not rebut or refute a single citation that was provided by the OP. You essentially said "nuh uh" and it's amusing you think that is in any way a valid argument.

Remember folks, when righties try to hand wave away facts and evidence, hold their feet to the fire so everyone can see.