Saw a post about this at !history@hexbear.net and was a bit confused by exactly how badly the people there were going at each others throats in the comments. Nobody seemed able to agree on what precisely happened in 1971. Suggested explanations included:

  • Neoliberalism being declared the state religion by Grand Moff Richard Nixon
  • The gold standard being abolished
  • The oil crisis
  • The Republican and Democrat parties becoming increasingly divided
  • Declining birthrates
  • Institutional Racism

If any of you could give some explanations with, like, sources that aren’t just 10 pages of graphs with arrows pointing at 1971, that would be pretty great.

  • Rivalarrival
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    1970 was the last time the government collected more than 3% of GDP in taxes. After that point, there was less and less of a need to avoid taxation.

    We need a new tax bracket for the ultra wealthy. The top current bracket is 37% above ~$300,000. For most of the 20th century, the top tier tax bracket was 91%. We need a 91% tax bracket on income beyond $600,000. We need some sharp incentive for the wealthiest among us to avoid.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        First off, your link is about 80% tracking information. You can remove the “?” and everything that follows it.

        You are correct. The value of those shares should be considered income and taxed at the time of transfer. If they were, the 91% top-tier tax bracket would catch most of their excess income. Since that isn’t happening, we need additional measures.

        Capital gains tax should be higher than income tax. It is patently absurd that sitting around waiting for your money to make more money is taxed less than busting your ass for 40+ hours a week. With capital gains taxed higher than income, businesses will want to pay a larger percentage of their workers with shares rather than simple income.

        More importantly, we need a specific type of wealth tax. We don’t need to tax all wealth: We need to tax financial assets. Registered securities. The vehicles that the ultra wealthy use to exponentially transfer wealth out of the economy.

        We should tax registered securities at 1-3% per year. Natural persons holding less than $10 million in securities are exempt. That keeps 99% of taxpayers from owing this tax.

        The securities tax should be paid in shares of the security, transferred directly to the IRS. By paying directly in shares, they don’t have to find a buyer; the don’t have to liquidate them, so they won’t be dragging down prices for everyone else. The IRS will sell off these shares over time, such that IRS liquidation sales never comprise more than 1% of total traded volume.

        Securities are shares of the “means of production”. A securities tax will drive ownership of those shares toward the working class.

        • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          My accounting team told me they would open more Panamanian shell companies for me, and the shares would get distributed across them. I’d retain full ownership, of course.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago
            1. If they are holding shares that can be traded in US markets, the SEC knows about those shares, and ultimately controls those shares. They don’t need your Panamanian shell company to release them. You’ll wake up one morning to find that a portion of the shares formerly in your shell company’s portfolio are now in the IRS’s portfolio. The SEC just ctrl-x’d them from your portfolio, and ctrl-v’d them to the IRS.

            2. Your Panamanian shell company is not a “natural person”. Only “natural persons” are eligible for the $10 million dollar exemption. Your shell company pays the tax on its entire portfolio, not just the excess above $10 million.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      We need a 91% tax bracket on income beyond $600,000. We need some sharp incentive for the wealthiest among us to avoid.

      This is a fantastic idea, and it wouldn’t actually require eating any of them, necessarily.

    • misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ultra wealthy got so rich you won’t undo inequality with just income tax. There needs to be a cap on existing wealth and if they opposed income tax, they won’t part with it willingly.