This sounds to me like people misunderstanding of the concept of tax brackets, not a deliberate deception.

Yes, there is a difference between an effective tax rate and marginalized tax rate. However, my point was that no one ever paid the marginalized income tax rate of 91% for income over 200k. In fact the 1% of their day had an average effective income tax rate that was lower than the lowest marginalized bracket available which was 17.4%

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s

There were just a lot more loopholes back in the day that catered to the super wealthy. They still had things like capital gains, but they also had the oil depletion allowance, accelerated real estate depreciation allowance, collapsible corporations, and the ability to daisy chain their reported income across a number of years. The ultra wealthy who could afford to lobby members of Congress also had the ability to pay politicians to create specified tax carve outs personalized to their specific needs.

The problem is that no one actually paid that, during that same time period tax avoidance was stupidly easy. The average tax rate for the highest earners (over 200k) rarely paid over 45%. Still higher than the average of today, but nowhere near what most people claim about the time.

Plus, before 1986 a lot of the really rich people who could afford to lobby politicians used to be able to create “riffle-shot provisions” basically highly personalized tax carve outs created for them by individual politicians.

The most famous individual tax carveout in American history occurred in the Revenue Act of 1951. Louis B. Mayer, the mega-wealthy head of Hollywood studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), wanted to retire and cash out his massive share of the studio’s future profits. Under normal rules, this lump sum would be taxed as personal income at a whopping 91% rate. Mayer hired a powerful Washington lobbyist who worked with standard-setting politicians to write a highly specific amendment. The law stated that a taxpayer could treat a retirement payout as a lower-taxed capital gains distribution (taxed at only 25%), but only if: • The taxpayer had been employed by the company for more than 20 years. • They had held a contractual right to a share of future profits for at least 12 years. • They had been entitled to these rights for at least 5 years after termination of employment. • The entire payout occurred in a single block in one tax year. The criteria were so incredibly specific that Louis B. Mayer and one other MGM executive were the only two people in the United States who qualified. It saved Mayer an estimated $2 million ($23+ million in today’s money).

I mean that’s basically been her bread and butter for her entire tenure. The purpose of “moderate” Republicans is to act like they are reasonable, but only vote against the party when the party has already secured enough votes.

He would be really upset about you saying that if he could read.

15 years experience in a leadership position for something so specific seems like a hard ask. I feel like that’s just asking for a person in their 50s who probably won’t really understand the technological environment they’ll be dealing with.

Is it most likely he was shot by a rifle? Absolutely.

Nah, I think his neck just did that. Sometimes it happens, just look at JFK. One day you’re being driven in a sweet convertible by your boys, the next second your head just decides to become a different shape.

That is one of the potential benefits of the authoritarian state, though that benefit heavily relies on the state itself taking responsibility over its own failings instead of utilizing minority groups as a scape goat.

So it’s more of a roll of the die instead of something that can be purposely developed as a plan of action by reactionary forces within the majority.

Spain lived under fascist rule for four decades. And many lives were lost in that fight. Europeans know first hand the horror of fascism.

Eh… I think the rapid rise of far right parties all across Europe would dispel the notion that Europe has received some kind of immunity to fascism.

In reality all democracies are vulnerable to fascism. The German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt wrote about the inherent vulnerability of democracy in his book The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy in 1923. He basically wrote the playbook that every fascist still utilizes today.

Writing “Every actual democracy rests on the principle that not only are equals equal, but unequals will not be treated equally.” Basically, you can tear apart any democracy by framing diversity and minority opinions as existential threats to the political community, by exploiting this you can lay the groundwork for majoritarian tyranny and state-sponsored exclusion.

Cuba had struggled - although US sanctions are a big part of that - but they have somewhat recently started allowing some small businesses more officially.China is pretty capitalist these days. Sure, lots of central control. They are very much not communist or socialist.

Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and Communism. Just because a socialist country has a mixed economy does not mean it isn’t socialist. So long as the government has the ability to control the means of production then it is a socialist country.

I’m not changing my opinion that the most successful countries use capitalism

It depends on how you are defining success. If you are judging it by acquisition of capital, then yeah… But we must be honest and realize that has only been possible by exploiting their own citizens, and by involving themselves with decades if not hundreds of years of imperialism over the southern hemisphere.

Thus I go back to highly regulated capitalism.

Highly regulated capitalism is still dependent on exploitation of the 3rd world.

Yes, I agree. And the problem with anything else is that it doesn’t work at all. lol.

According to who? China is a socialist government where the state has the power to take control over the means of production of any corporation in the country. It has gone from one of the poorest nations on the planet to one of the greatest super powers in a few decades.

Cuba has survived as a socialist nation and has done so despite being neighbors with a country that’s been stepping regime change for over 50 years.

Vietnam defeated the most powerful country in history and has dragged itself out of poverty…

of heavily regulated capitalism - to keep those influences in check. And it works, more or less, in some of the highest rated countries in the world (i.e. the US is not in that list) - think where the scan the navy in. :)

Yes… The point is once people accumulate enough wealth they can influence the government that is regulating the economy. The countries who follow the Nordic model also have the benefit of being relatively small populations who control a vast amount of or natural resources, which allow them to create large sovereign wealth funds.

Evenso wealth and income inequalities are already rising in these nations. Right winged parties have already started to gain traction in a lot of these countries due to immigration scares.

Thanks!

Lol, weird way to admit your entire argument is baseless, but okay.

Great rebuttal… especially considering that I’m right on the border of genx and millennial.

I’m on the border of genx and millennial, I don’t really know why this dude has a problem with genz. It’s not like my generation were any less consumerist than anyone before or after. And politically more genz are further left than any prior generation since ww2.

Hell, I was being called a pinko back in the day for things like publicly being against the invasion of Iraq, or saying Muslims weren’t all terrorists.

Lord, I hope you aren’t responsible for teaching anything on your campus. Personal property is not a concept unique to capitalism. What do you expect these kids to do… tailor their own clothes, build their own computers and phones?

Not doing the things I listed?

Watching social media?

Protesting by not participating?

Not participating in capitalism? So not having a job and being homeless? Or just not buying items that bring them the small amount of comfort they can afford?

Socialism is available in pockets here in the US. Public library is free!

Social programs are not the same thing as socialism… Socialism is an economic and political system that enables the distribution of resources via workers owning the means of production.

It is the political and economic model that takes place during the transitional period from capitalism to communism. During that transition it’s obvious that you would still engage with capitalism even if you are advocating for more progress.

The idea that you’re only really a socialist if you live a monk like existence devoid of any comforts is just a silly opinion made by people with fox news brain rot.

The problem with capitalism is that it is inherently designed to unevenly accumulate capital to the owners of the means of production. These owners will always use their capital to influence the governments that are supposed to moderate their greed.

So you’re blaming people for not participating in an economic model that currently isn’t available to them?

In your opinion, what exactly would they be doing differently if their beliefs were “authentically” socialist?

Yeah… I would still classify the scenario as problematic?

Apparently if you have enough money for a decent lawyer you can just refuse a court order to pay people.

It’s the inherent problem with the American judicial system, judges only utilize the full power of the court against defenseless poor people. When dealing with anyone who they see as belonging to their own class suddenly they have an infinite amount of patience and empathy.