Embed Notice

@wjmaggos @volkris

the article says there is an effective 6% change in taxes on the wealthy between 1950s and 2014.

The article says we never really had a 91% tax rate, we had an effective ~40% tax rate… Yes having a small effective change in tax rate has a smaller less destructive effect on rich people, whereas if we had an actual effective 91% tax rate we would have seen a much larger destructive effect.

Your argumentitive tactics just got really weird and dishonest on that one (the rest I disagreed with but seemed in good faith)… hoping that was just a fluke.

when we had an amazing economy and lots of govt support for science, infrastructure, education and buying homes.

As the article points out the tax rate was very similar to todays, not the 91% people claim… So your right having a more reasonable tax rate near 40% is why the economy didnt completely collapse and could still do some good.

middle classes matter more. we see massive poverty with extreme wealth.

See there you go making stuff up again. The actual data directly contradicts this.. AS we see more extreme wealth poverty has objectively went down, but 1/7th of what it used to be when there was far less wealthy…. you cant just make stuff up like that when the data is the exact opposite.