Taxing the rich is totally equitable. We don't tax those fuckers enough. We did a fine job after WWII, when the top 1% were paying a 93% tax rate (unless they could prove they were doing something constructive with that money, of course), where we were able to fund wars and highways and rocketships and social programs. JFK cut the top rate to 70%, and it was REPUBLICANS who said that was economically reckless.
Until 1969, people could deduct their taxes down to nothing. And much of the rich did that or close to it. So, the nominal rates weren't really an accurate portrayal of the actual taxation going on. In 1969, the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was created. This limited how low you deduct taxes down if you made beyond a certain threshold of income. The AMT still exists today, and it has a minimum of 26%. So, unless you plan on raising the AMT, increasing the nominal rate doesn't mean a whole lot.
Of course, a lot of rich people have much of their money in things that are less taxed, like capital gains. Those are taxed less, because they generally benefit the economy in terms of investment. I know much of the left has proposed taxing capital gains more, but you'll notice that even a lot of Democrat politicians shy away from that, because they often have a lot of money in that category.
Then your boy Ronny Ray-gun cut the taxes because he drank the Voodoo Economics Koolaid. It didn't really help the economy that much (The recovery from the 1981 recession was slow) and he quickly reversed course with the 1986 tax reform, which got the Right Wing howling. Then Bush promised "No New Taxes", but had to raise them because all the deregulation of the banks caused the S&L Crisis. Then along came Clinton, who raised them on the rich, and lo and behold, we got balanced budgets and economic prosperity. Didn't take long for Republicans to **** that up again.
Once again, big government is why Reagan and Bush weren't as fiscally conservative as they pretended to be. If they had actually followed through with what people like Ron Paul had pushed for, they could've cut taxes further, but more importantly, they would have cut spending even more than that.
You mean the brutal, racist dictatorship might have won? Gee, I hope not.
I was thinking more like Europe could have ended the war without us having to get involved. Even if we had traded with both sides, Germany was fighting a 2 front war, which they foolishly repeated in WW2. In WW1, Britain and Russia could have still defeated Germany without us in the long run.
Nope, sorry, it was wealth redistribution, period, because Unions made sure working people got a fair wage. Not surprisingly, as unions have declined, we've seen the middle class decline as well. But this is a thing...
View attachment 895123
Again, the above picture applies to you. You are definitely the guy with the suspenders.
Wealth inquality is the biggest threat to our civilization. Do you want a list of countries that had extreme wealth inequality. Let's go.
France 1787
Russia 1917
China 1949
Cuba 1959
Iran 1978
None of those placed turned out well for the rich.
Thatcher was a word that I can't use here on USMB.
As much as you seem to hate rich people, you apparently don't realize they fund both parties. Big banks are typically the biggest donors of the major candidates from each.
So, if your criticism of the GOP is that its supporters are fools due to the wealthy manipulating the party, well... the same would apply to Democratic supporters.
Wealth inequality isn't the problem. There are plenty of nations that have very little wealth inequality, and it's because almost everyone is poor. Any nation that has a mostly free economy is going to have significant wealth inequality, because not everyone is good at business, and not everyone pursues a well paid career. For example, no one becomes a social worker for the money. It's a job someone chooses because they view it as meaningful. They select that career knowing that they aren't going to be a high earner.
What actually matters is economic mobility. If your economy is set up in such a way that anyone who works hard can rise in standard of living, things work out without much government intervention. The problem with America is that government has gotten so intrusive that economic mobility has fallen, which does create some level of wealth inequality.
Frankly, if wealth inequality is your focus, you should look into how much small businesses suffered under the very slanted lockdown policies that were enforced during COVID. Big businesses were largely allowed to continue operating, while small businesses were typically forced to shut down. The feds did try to compensate for this with a huge amount of funding assistance put forward for small businesses, but it was very poorly regulated, so a lot of fraud happened.
If anything, COVID showed that American policy in general heavily favors big business over small business, which is a problem that maybe you and I can agree needs to be resolved.