Top marginal income tax rate should be fifty percent

[ieoeja]

94. Since the Reagan Revolution (which included decentralizing and privatizing gov't) has destroyed ...

... the economy, your solution is to take it even further?


Let us revist the start of this subthread: 1911. Or rather, 1780 through 1932 when the United States had a very small federal government, no taxes, and it was understood that the government had absolutely no responsibility for the economy (for the record, you were wrong about there being no debt).

We experienced a full blown economic depression every 12 to 15 years on average during that time period.

1933 ushered in the era of big government. In the 78 years since we have not had a single economic depression.

78 years of big government without a single economic depression. 150 years of what you advocate with 7 or 8 depressions. That should end the discussion right there. Unless you think economic depressions are a good thing.

We only came close once since then: in 2008. That was only 30 years after the federal government began dismantling the New Deal. And the only thing that prevented a full blown economic depression in 2008 was intervention by big government.


After 30 years of Reganomics we are almost exactly where you want us. THAT is why the economy is in such trouble. Not because of too much or too centralized government, but because of the return to laissez faire capitalism.


Now, back to the effect of decentralization on the economy. Prior to Reagan (yet again) state taxes were extremely small. This is because they received block grants from the federal government. However, since the Republican's failure of Reaganomics prior to 1932, the United States had become almost a one party entity. In addition, the federal government finally started taking its role of protecting individual rights seriously. To break the stranglehold of Democratic rule and stop a runaway federal government that stopped state and local governments from lynching niggers and imprisoning faggots**, Reagan slashed the federal income taxes forcing the states to pick up the tax burden.

**If you're going to advocate a return to the good ol' days, let's not paint it over with pretty words that let us ingore what that truly means.

At the time the vast majority of state's were, like the Federal gov't, run by the Democrats. This meant those Democrats were forced to raise taxes to replace the block grants that Reagan took away from them. So while Reagan is cutting taxes, Democrats are raising them. Forcing them into the "bad guy" role let Republicans finally break the Democrats post-Depression stranglehold on American politics.

Flash forward a couple decades. Indiana offered to let United Airlines operate their maintenance tax free. Illinois loses taxes on UA, their employees, and other jobs fueled by the incomes of those employees. Indiana gains taxes on the employees and indirect jobs, but not on UA. The United States as a whole saw a decrease in the tax basis. When the tax basis decreases, but the needs do not (see **** below), we have no choice but to increase taxes on the existing basis.

Illinois responds by offering to let Boeing operate tax free. Again, Illinois gains less than Washington state loses. Again, the tax basis is decreased across the United States. Again, individuals and small businesses have to pay more to make up the loss. This is what decentralizing gov't does to the economy.

It also makes it more difficult for interstate business as they have to address differing regulations in different states.


**** If a tax basis decreases because of a shrinking population, then the needs also decrease. Chicago, for instance, has a shrinking population. We are collecting less in taxes, but we also don't need as many schools. So in that instance, we can cut instead of raising taxes. In the airline examples given above, there was no decrease in need. Only decrease in tax base.