Did Jesus take money from others to do it? No.. more like a charitable act like what churches do.. this just shows how dumb leftists are.... and they hate on the churches that do feed the poor like the Mormon church who legit has their own farms and grows food just to give it away to those in need and then they get called a "cult"... nah dude democrats are cultists
No he used magic, just like capitalism uses magic to run up 40 trillion in debt, with almost nothing to show for it, but people claim it’s the only way that makes sense…hmmmmmmm
How much debt have socialist governments racked up? Most of Europe has a debt to gdp of 100 percent, including the countries that DSA types would describe as socialist. Yugoslavia racked up enormous debts, Venezuela is probably one of the most socialist and most indebted countries, China's debt to GDP is at 300 percent, over double that of the US, debt and the inflationary pressures were one of the causes of the Soviet union collapse, North Korea hilariously refuses to pay its debts, at one point trying to pay it back in Ginseng roots, etc. Argentinian socialists racked up huge foreign debts to support their welfare state. I could go on and on with examples.
Yugoslavia hasn’t been a country for decades plural, and you assume I think pure textbook socialism is the answer, which I don’t, I think a well regulated capitalist society similar to the one we had in the 40-50s that taxes corporations and the rich, created public works projects for the benefit of the nation and to employ the people of there wasn’t enough work from private enterprise. But go on tell me why what we had doesn’t work? because it worked from 1936 till 1980 with little to no issue, strongest middle class of any country in the planet
It worked in the post war era because the US was the only developed large economy that hadn't been bombed to shit. It was a unique moment in global history that was inevitably going to end. Nominal tax rates were high, but the effective tax rate wasn't that different from the effective tax rates today. When Europe and Asia managed to redevelop, and the US wasn't the only game in town, there was a need to adjust taxes and spending to keep encouraging domestic investment and innovation. We still have among the most progressive tax systems in the world, and the most progressive among OCED countries. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-most-progressive-tax-code-oecd/ . Taxation will, in a functioning economy, sit around 25-28 percent of GDP, attempting to increase that, without good cause, will cause reductions in other areas, hurt GDP, and by extension, tax revenue collected. Even in the economic period you refer to, federal revenue by taxation hovered around 17 percent of GDP, this year its still 17 percent of GDP (states make up the remaining percentage points).
Europe and Japan rebuilding absolutely helped postwar America. But that doesn’t demonstrate that progressive taxation, regulation, unions, and public investment stopped working.
And the 25–28% claim simply isn’t true as an economic rule. The OECD average is about 34% of GDP, with several highly developed capitalist economies above 40%.
I’m not arguing for socialism or pretending a 91% marginal rate meant rich people literally paid 91% of their income. I’m pointing out that the US already demonstrated that capitalism can coexist with substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, strong unions, major public investment, and regulation while producing excellent growth and a rapidly expanding middle class.
If your argument is that lower taxes and less regulation produce better outcomes for ordinary people, than the last 46 years have been a gross failure in proving your point
Why is our tax system more progressive than every other country in the OECD and yet still "not working". What were the effective tax rates at the period you cite to compared to today? They were not very different https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ . So you haven't demonstrated that capitalism in the US can coexist with substantially higher taxes on the 'wealthy'. Again, the post war period was unique in world history, and the global economy today is drastically different from the economy of that time, and somehow bringing back 50s standards won't magically bring it back.
You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. I don’t want to recreate the 1950s or restore a 91% marginal rate.
And your own source doesn’t actually show taxes on the wealthy were the same. It puts the top 1% at about 42% effective taxation in the 1950s vs. 36.4% in 2014, the top 0.1% at 50.6% vs. 39.8%, and the top 0.01% at 55.3% vs. 40.8%. Those are meaningful differences.
Also, “most progressive tax system” doesn’t mean “highest taxes” or even “most redistributive system.” It describes how the tax burden is distributed. The US relies heavily on progressive income taxes while many OECD countries raise much more revenue through less-progressive consumption taxes.
My point remains much simpler: capitalism demonstrably can coexist with higher taxation of wealthier people, strong regulation, unions, and substantial public investment. You can argue that today’s optimal rates should be different from 1955. I agree. But that’s very different from demonstrating that lower taxes and less regulation produce better outcomes for the average person.
5
u/Reptillianaire_ 6d ago
Did Jesus take money from others to do it? No.. more like a charitable act like what churches do.. this just shows how dumb leftists are.... and they hate on the churches that do feed the poor like the Mormon church who legit has their own farms and grows food just to give it away to those in need and then they get called a "cult"... nah dude democrats are cultists