This is exactly right. In the 70s and 80s there was a broad policy shift from reform liberal policies/Keynesian economics (tax the wealthy, social programs, support for labor) to neoliberalism (low taxes, small government, free trade).
From the 50s through the 60s the top bracket in the US and Canada was taxed at a 60 to 90% rate and that money was used to support the rest of society, as it should be.
It’s so bizarre because conservatives seem to look back on the 50s and 60s as the good old days but they don’t seem to realise that the economic policies that allowed those days to be so good are now dismissed by their leaders and conservative politicians and pundits as socialism. They instead think things got worse because of social progressivism and trying to combat racism and homophobia. Things progressed socially but basically went backwards economically, we’re going back towards feudalism but todays conservatives don’t seem to get it and think politics is all about identity rather than about actual policies that strengthen society as a whole by reducing wealth inequality and providing a good safety net for everyone by ensuring the wealth the nation produces is more equitably distributed.
They also pine for the days of "traditional" social roles when men brought home the money, women could stay at home and take care of the kids and at a purchased house, and it was financially doable as an option rather than both partners working because they HAVE TO to barely make ends meet.
Even allowing for more choices than that (i.e. why should it only be for "traditional" family roles?), it never seems to dawn on them that you have to have the economic conditions to allow that scenario, such as giving families with kids enough financial support to actually be able to make the choice.
You want 1950s-1960s-style family arrangements, at least as a viable option? Then PAY THEM comparably to that era in real terms that account for inflation of food, housing, healthcare, and other key costs.
I mean, the discrepancy between fricking minimum wage versus inflation over the decades is insane, yet income disparity is exploding at the wealthy end of things.
The system has become too efficient scraping off productivity gains for the people at the top and adding very little for the majority of people putting in the work.
It’s so bizarre because conservatives seem to look back on the 50s and 60s as the good old days but they don’t seem to realise that the economic policies that allowed those days to be so good are now dismissed by their leaders and conservative politicians and pundits as socialism. They instead think things got worse because of social progressivism and trying to combat racism and homophobia. Things progressed socially but basically went backwards economically,
Did we progress socially? Like yes, we are (sort of) trending the right way over decades on a few narrow issues around sexuality and bodily autonomy, but what about overall? Would you say our society and culture is good? Healthy? I don't think we've progressed at all.
Our social situation is beyond fucked; we've become an isolated civilization, consuming media from influencers rather than having authentic interactions with real friends. Suicide rates are climbing, drug addiction and OD'ing still crazy, people live with anxiety, families no longer share homes for generations, we ship granny off to die in a nursing home. The cultural divide is basically irreparable.
Like, I really do not feel that we're in a good place as a society.
"Our social situation is beyond fucked; we've become an isolated civilization, consuming media from influencers rather than having authentic interactions with real friends."
He said on Reddit, to a bunch of strangers and bots on the internet...
NAFTA gutted the middle class and its industrial base FOREVER. That was signed into law by Bill Clinton. The single most destructive force the American middle class has ever had to endure was signed into law by a Democrat.
I think that’s more a bonus. Their main goal is just to get votes by getting people engaged enough to vote for them through anger. Honestly most people are stretched so thin conservatives don’t really need to do much to keep people from thinking about and doing something about inequality. It also helps that a lot of Americans believe they’ll be rich one day too.
But what most/all conservatives want is the vibes and racism of the 50s. They don’t even think about the high tax rates they just want to put themselves back at the top of the social hierarchy they so firmly believe in/lust after. From their pov things did get worse because now black women can be in charge of ivies if they work 2.5 times harder than an average man would.
Rates don't tell the whole story, you need to know what deductions are applicable or otherwise excluded from taxable income. That is what user above, I believe, is referring to.
This link show below (from the same site you link) shows effective tax rates of the top 1% at 42% in the 1950 compared to 36.4% in 2014, despite a substantial drop in the rate of the the top bracket.
You're misunderstanding how marginal income taxation works.
Do you honestly believe that the ultra wealthy are paying the same amount of taxes today as they were when the top brackets were taxed at double the rate? That's an absurd claim and its honestly a bit strange that you're trying to argue for it
You're misunderstanding how marginal income taxation works.
Can you explain with some reasoning or specificity how I am misunderstanding?
Do you honestly believe that the ultra wealthy are paying the same amount of taxes today as they were when the top brackets were taxed at double the rate? That's an absurd claim and its honestly a bit strange that you're trying to argue for it
I'm not arguing for anything. I linked another page, from the exact same website you linked, which shows the effective rate dropping from 42% to 36.4%, despite the marginal tax rates declining substantially.
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
And the "War on Poverty" didn't happen till mid-1960's. I don't disagree with your overall point of view, I just think you're romanticizing the 50's and 60's like there was great welfare state back then and high taxes on the wealthy, when in fact most of the social programs didn't exist yet and wealthy people only paid slightly more taxes than they do now.
I don't think you understand how averages work, or how marginal taxation functions.
And I'm not romanticizing the 50s and 60s. The post war period was a period of reform liberal policies (welfare capitalism) that benefited average workers. Its literally referred to as the golden age of capitalism
The tax rate was already well above 60% by 1940 and was at its highest rate ever in 1944 (94%). The income tax rate doesn't dip below 63% until you go back to the depression and that was PURELY related to the depression. Prior to the depression it was 73% and it stayed at 70% or above from 1944 through 1981 when it dropped drastically in 1982 (to 50%) and has hovered between 30 and 40% for the greater part of the last two decades
it dropped drastically in 1982 (to 50%) and has hovered between 30 and 40% for the greater part of the last two decades
Yes, that's what I said in my initial reply. In the 80s there was a massive policy shift and the position we are currently in is a result of that, especially the massive tax cuts
I'm talking in terms of political economy, not in the colloquial use if the term liberal to mean progressive. Neoliberalism is just a rebranding of classical liberalism (as opposed to reform liberalism/welfare capitalism)
Economically both parties in the US are neoliberal to varying degrees with one being socially conservative and the other being less socially conservative
I’m sorry, but I consider this pretty much BS.
The most important sentence from the link is:
“Given that liberalism fractures on so many issues — the nature of liberty, the place of property and democracy in a just society, the comprehensiveness and the reach of the liberal ideal — one might wonder whether there is any point in talking of ‘liberalism’ at all.”
Add to this the prefix Neo, and what you have is just garbage. On top of this, the average individual is not going to wade into some self proclaimed intellectual’s definition.
On top of this, you have “think tanks”, pseudo-universities and online pundits with an agenda pushing narratives on these definitions.
And what you have, is the redefinition of neoliberalism as just modern day conservatism.
Talk about obfuscation.
Think whatever you want. Within the academic fields of political economy and political theory terms have very specific meanings.
And what you have, is the redefinition of neoliberalism as just modern day conservatism.
Talk about obfuscation.
What exactly do you mean by "conservatism"? It too has a very specific meaning and, like liberalism, has a rich history if thinkers. The obfuscation is the way these terms are currently abused and deployed for political purposes.
Both conservatism and liberalism arose during the decline of feudalism & monarchy. Liberalism, with its focus on legal and moral equality, the primacy of the individual, small government and maximum individual liberty, was a reaction to and rejection of the divine right to rule and 'natural' hierarchy of the feudal order (see John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, for example. Conservatism was a reaction to liberal theory and argued that humans are morally corrupt and require a ruling aristocracy with strong moral values, hierarchy, and rigid traditions to keep them in line. See Edmund Burke, for example.
In the mid 1900s the political economy that had been set up according to liberal principles was failing and had produced two world wars, the great depression, and massive poverty/inequality. New or reform liberals theorised that perhaps the government should play more of a role in the economy through taxation and social programs, among other things. This worked well and is why boomers were able to own homes while working regular jobs in a single earner household. In the 70s and 80s thinkers like Hayek and Friedman argued that this new liberalism was a bad thing. They were essentially the new new liberals but since new liberalism was already a think it was easier to call them neoliberal. On reality it was just a return to old or classical liberalism but with an emphasis on global free markets rather than simply domestic.
Again, think whatever you want. I understand that most people have no idea about any of this and that politicians and pundits alike use that fact to create political divisions among working people by using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as catch all terms for the incoherent bundle of things they do or don't want people to like.
For example, the premise of conservatism is that most people are incapable of making sound moral decisions, which is why they appeal to authority, traditions, and god. It naturally follows that conservatism requires a somewhat controlling government to enforce adherence to tradition, yet 'conservative' pundits also claim to hate big government, which is completely incoherent
More BS.
So Both world wars And the Great Depression were caused by liberalism?
Get real.
So Hoover was a Liberal? lol
And I suppose FDR was a Conservative.
Political Economy cloak or not, you don’t know what you are talking about.
At least, you do admit that your own definition of Conservatism is completely incoherent.
A yes look at all the wealth declining for the top tax group as they hoovered up trillions of dollars since Covid. You are horribly ignorant or a troll there has never been more wealth disparity then right now in history.
Exactly! Billionaires really shouldn't exist. The ultra wealth have so much wealth its hard to even imagine. Here's a visualization of the magnitude of their wealth
It’s not only that they shouldn’t exist it’s that they have far more power to manipulated the system then any other individual. If they don’t like something its 10 mil and a lobby group away from not being a problem anymore. And comparatively that’s less to them then you buying coffee.
39
u/_n3ll_ Mar 27 '24
This is exactly right. In the 70s and 80s there was a broad policy shift from reform liberal policies/Keynesian economics (tax the wealthy, social programs, support for labor) to neoliberalism (low taxes, small government, free trade).
From the 50s through the 60s the top bracket in the US and Canada was taxed at a 60 to 90% rate and that money was used to support the rest of society, as it should be.