Comment

Comment on The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

How can it be broken if it works exactly as intended? Same goes for the tax laws in my shitstain country.

I read an article the other day how taxes are a way - and always have been - to redistribute from the poor to the rich. Sounds about right.

source

Sort:hotnew top

The_v@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Taxes can go either way. It depends on how they were written.

The tax code after the Great Depression allowed for massive expansion of public projects in the U.S. It was 63% for the top earners. During WW2 the top tax bracket was at 94%.

When the boomers were all born the tax bracket was above 70% for the top earners. This high tax bracket is what fueled the creation of a large middle class, public infrastructure, schools, research, space exploration, and the massive military buildup and wars. It also acted as an effective anti-minopoly/oligarchy system because the tax system discouraged it.

Then in the 80’s Reagan slashed the taxes for the top earners down to 28%. its never gotten above 40% since then. Most high earning companies have so many exeptions today that the real tax rate is often 0%.

Because of it the infrastructure built during the 50’s-70’s is degrading and falling apart. Public services are declining and the middle class is shrinking as people become more impoverished.

source
- myrmidex@lemmy.nogods.be ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Wow, your post sent me down quite a rabbit hole. I suspected 94% was rather high, this page puts it into clearer perspective:
  
  The “exceedingly high” part of this question most likely refers to the federal income tax’s “confiscatory” top rates coming out of World War II, which the Eisenhower Administration left in place into the 1960s. During the war, the top “marginal rate” was 94%, but 94% of what? Then as now, income tax rates moved up at distinct break points. In this made-up example, consider a 15% rate up to $25,000, 21% from $25,000 to $50,000, and 25% over $50,000. Those making $50,001 or more won’t pay a quarter of their total income, but rather 15% of the first $25,000, 21% of the next $25,000, and 25% of everything above $50K. That’s why the system is called progressive - the percentage rate progresses upward with income, but the higher percentage applies only to new (marginal) income above each break point. In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation).
  
  Very few individuals encountered this top rate, however. The actual proportion of earnings citizens paid as income taxes in 1945 was far lower: for the poorest 20% of Americans, 1.7%; for the next 20%, 6.2%; for the middle quintile, 8.9%, for the upper-middle 20%, 10%; and for the wealthiest quintile, 20.7%.
  
  source
  
  Still, your point stands, taxes can be an instrument for (more) equality. The article I referred to (see another reply of mine for the full article) also gives an example of how taxes can be honest, and also gives an example of a time in Italy when they were.
  
  source
  - The_v@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    In 2025 it would be anything above 3.6 million. It’s a ton of money but here’s a list of a few people that hit it.
    
    aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos
    
    Now if they added in a progressive tax rate for corporate taxes as well… Say anything over 500 million in net profit is taxed at a 90+% rate. That would solve all sorts of issues. Suddenly investors of all these mega corps would be pushing hard to divide up the companies into smaller entities.
    
    Wealth tax in the modern age could be an inheritance tax. Anything over the median life earnings of individuals could be taxed at 100%. So median earnings in my area is $65K * 45 years (20-65k) = $2.93 million.
    
    source