(September 28, 2016 at 5:07 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:(September 22, 2016 at 11:49 am)Crossless1 Wrote: I'm far less troubled by income inequality than I am by the inequality of political access that results. Now that money=speech for 1st Amendment purposes, Orwell's 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others' sentiment seems to have been enshrined in our political system. Yes, it has always been thus, but now the SC has put the stamp of approval on it. If a relative handful of people can possibly queer an election result by dumping tons of money into a Super Pac and spreading misinformation about a candidate they don't like (and, yes, it cuts both ways among conservatives and liberals), then our entire political system is largely a joke and up for grabs to those interests with the most disposable wealth.
I favor sensible tax policies that are not regressive but also don't unduly stifle investment and capital creation. There's a sensible medium somewhere that we, as a country, seem to have a hard time wrapping our arms around. The real culprit I think we should focus on is the out-of-control money that gets dumped into every election.
America's strongest economic performance happened at a time when the highest marginal tax rate was 98% (granted few people paid any tax at that rate and only on a small portion of their income). The thing was, at that time America was a far more equal society than it is now (even with the overt racism) and more people had the ability to buy luxuries as well as needs and the security to go into business, innovate or learn new skills to better their job prospects. That's the worst thing about income inequality, that it stifles upward social mobility while accelerating downwards mobility.
America's strongest economic performance also happened during a period of rebuilding in Europe and east Asia. The American economy pretty much swaggered into a situation in which it was the only really big player in the game, at first. It's in that context that the marginal tax rate became as high as it did, that union membership flourished, that our manufacturing base was extremely strong and virtually unchallenged, and when the tide could lift most boats and prosperous middle class status was within reach of so many.
Then came real competition on the international stage and a string of, in my opinion, disastrous political decisions over the past 30-40 years in response to this competition. I've long regarded the U.S.'s "golden age" during the '50s-60s as an historical anomaly created by WWII and its Cold War aftermath -- not as something inevitable or 'natural' due to our 'American way of life'. We were just fortunate in that our cities weren't destroyed, our manufacturing base wasn't flattened, and our wartime losses (grave as they were) were actual servicemen, not vast numbers of our civilian population. Oh, and we benefited mightily from the influx of scientific and technical know-how that managed to escape the Germans and the Soviets.
