this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
844 points (99.1% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

634 readers
1033 users here now


Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts


founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

Originally Posted By u/FuturePowerful At 2025-03-27 10:18:54 AM | Source


top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

There were very few people this applied to.

The real reason is the corporate tax rate. It was 52%. Today it’s 21%, and it’s effectively close to zero for many corporations with the tax loopholes used to avoid taxation. Shell corporations, deferring taxes, what have you.

So the US has lost more than 50% of the corporate taxes collected since the ‘50s.

E: the decline in tax % is pretty closely followed by the dramatic rise in CEO compensation.

The wealth being funneled to the top by cutting corporate tax got us the billionaire oligarchs we’re dealing with today.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We are long overdue for a hard reset. We need a new government with a modern democracy, then the assets of the top 0.1% need to be nationalized. Let them keep enough wealth to still be in the top 10%, but hit them hard and fast. Also, we should do what china does and to end offshoring by forcing companies to sell 20% of their company to the US government if they want access to our markets. Next, we need tax breaks for companies who spend more money compensating their workers than giving money to the parasitic shareholders.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Let them keep enough wealth to still be in the top 10%, but hit them hard and fast.

That's fine for the ones who cooperate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Seeing the numbers laid out, even though I already knew it was bad, is profoundly depressing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The wealth was also built on the back of exploited Afro Americans. Remember that even Brown happened in the middle of the fifties.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes but that was when manufacturing was 33% of the workforce.

Today it’s only 8%. Machinery and robots do the labor and generate extreme wealth in tech and other spaces.

So theoretically you would not REQUIRE the same degrees of exploitation to achieve a middle class similar to that time period.

The win of factory and laborers work is unionization. Tech means decentralized workforce and less likelihood to trust your peers and unionize which was one of the largest wins of the 50s. When you are rubbing elbows with your coworkers - and are geographically living through similar cost of living as your colleagues - you are more likely to strike or require the same or similar types of improvements at the same moments.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What people in the US are failing to understand is that there are still good manufacturing jobs in the US today. Pharmaceuticals, aerospace, biotech, etc. They’re just on the higher end and require some type of technical or bachelors degree. Although, with the current regime and how they want to run (or not run) education, makes it seem like they want to bring us back to a developing country status where labor standards are low and manufacturing jobs are “low skilled.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah totally agree - which should make workers movements that prioritize wins for all American workers the goal. Child care / education systems that work / health care coverage that works - helps the 8% rugged manufacturing as well as like 50% of the active work force. Vs. bringing back high labor work / low skill - which if we pull it off would mean I what? 2-4% expansion of those industries? So…. 12% of the workforce would be prioritized? (as they expand those sectors).

Internal manufacturing to secure specific interests makes sense. (Medical supplies like during COVID or reduction of reliance from certain super powers sure.

But the current admin is at odds with financing sectors or even stimulating or supporting sectors with policy (it’s actively cutting and damaging policy in them) while also slamming tariffs across the very same sectors.

So it makes no sense. But that’s what I figured going into all this. We are reducing class mobility, while reducing health and safety, with every policy and cut. While increasing the debt simultaneously. It’s wild.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyone that thinks these fascists running the country want to go back to the 1950s hasn’t been paying attention. They want to go back to 1850s, when women and minorities were second class citizens or not citizens at all and white Anglo Saxon Christian men ran everything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

They want to go back to a past that doesn't exist except in their minds.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And really only included white Christians.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago

And men. Single women had few options.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Don't forget it took a democratic US president getting elected four times in a row to set up that tax rate. This tax status took about 30 years to fully reverse.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Anyone with a billion dollars should be taxed at 110%

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (22 children)

I hate that people will argue that highly taxing billionaires is disciplining success. Really? In what way? At what point is the success of their brand, product, or company no longer really theirs? When you're a megacorp with hundreds of thousands of employees what about the success they are producing? It's preposterous to keep holding these oligarchs up on a pedestal and continuing to pretend that they add any real benefit to anything other than the optics their PR people invent for them.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

Also, define success. Please, seriously, just do.

Billionaires have failed as humans. They are complete failures. Zero respect for them or their means of money grabbing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Agreed. Also, billionaires like Musk would still be able to skirt around those taxes by sharing his wealth with his 50 children and baby mamas so it wouldn't even hurt him, it would just limit how much power a single person could have.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 days ago

But then they'd have to dodge taxes by reinvesting in their company's reputation and their workers. Instead of just cashing out, they'd have to maintain the company reputation as an asset that would pay them forever, as long as the company stayed healthy.

Is that what we really want?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Well... except no, it was made possible by a surge in consumption fueled by massive government infrastructure investment and forced savings during WWII. Industry was flush with money from government contracts, people were trained and educated in all kinds of skills, and because so many consumer goods had been either rationed or unavailable due to war production, the average person had lots of savings to spend. Almost nobody (maybe even literally nobody) paid the top income tax rate, because the wealthiest people get the vast majority of their income from capital gains, not salaries.

NOTE: I am NOT saying taxing the rich is a bad idea, I'm saying the 91% top income tax rate was NOT what made 1950s prosperity possible. The trick is not to get all your "knowledge" from memes.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Capital gains and allowing businesses to write off expenditures as a tax break are horrible things imo.

It's up there with drug ads and PACs.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

I agree, capital gains shouldn't be treated as special and privileged. But as long as they are, an ultra-high top tax rate on regular income is just empty PR and will not effectively tax the rich.

What you're saying about expenditures doesn't make sense though, because if you take in $10 but spend $8 to do it, you should only be taxed on the $2 you gained, because you don't have the $8 anymore. The term "writing off" is just accounting slang for keeping track of costs.

There are, however, phony write-offs that shouldn't exist because they don't represent reality. For example, real estate depreciation. Depreciation, if you don't know, means spreading out an eventual cost over a long period of time. For example, a factory machine will have to be replaced in say 10 years, so instead of waiting until you actually have to spend that money to replace it, you're allowed to take 1/10th of that loss per year. That makes sense because the eventual expense is real.

But if you own rental property you're allowed to depreciate it as well - as if the property will gradually wear out and become worthless like a factory machine. This is ridiculous because the value of real estate almost universally goes UP over time. Fake but totally legal writeoffs such as this are just a gift to property owners, and should be eliminated from the tax system.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] thatKamGuy 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Government contracts

..and where did the Government get money from, in order to fund such contracts?

The simplest solution would be to mandate that when taking out a loan against shares (a commonly used loophole), it is treated as a Capital Gains Tax event.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

At that time the simplest solution was to sell war bonds, which are essentially loans from the public. In the years following the war people cashed in their bonds and earned interest. To pay that, the government used new tax revenue people paid on their salaries, which were higher because business was booming with everybody buying more stuff. The economy spiraled up until the late 1950s when wartime savings finally ran out. At that point the boom should have ended, but the business world didn't want that so they started handing out consumer credit like candy. The public, also not wanting to end their spending spree, happily took them up on it. Credit spending became an ingrained habit, and now the average American family maintains several monthly salaries worth of credit card debt.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And the highest rate of union membership in US history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ronald Reagon and his trickle-down economics.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, but don't forget that liberals had many many chances to undo the damage Republicans did but they never would. Why? Because liberals are capitalists and capitalist politicians ultimately serve the capital class first and foremost

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

And the 50s were a horrible time for women!!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

That’s right folks, if you want prosperity, eat the fuckin rich

load more comments
view more: next ›