In response to 21
September 2011 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the subsequent
googling of past income tax rates…finally
I like it when Jon Stewart points out when rich people are
just wanting ways to get richer, but when it comes to people talking about how
we can't POSSIBLY grow economically as a nation any taxes are raised by those
that can afford it, he should mention the historical federal income tax rates
the U.S. has had.
It doesn't take much time to research creditable, factual
info. Just to give you an idea of what
you may find, from 1932 to 1986 the top bracket was never below 50% and topped
out at 94%. During the boom after the
Great Depression and World War II, it was around 90%. When adjusted for the ever-lovely inflation,
for most of our income tax history, if a "married filling jointly"
household made between ~$100,000 and $250,000, they paid 50% or more.
That being said, our infrastructure over the past few
decades has increased – as it should to some degree for any growing nation –
while our taxes have gone down. If you
use almost any other rich country on the planet as an example, we should be
paying more in taxes for the physical size of our country and the amount of App
Store-like variations on public services. I imagine it is mathematically plausible to
lower taxes SLOWLY over time if things are being managed REALLY well for the
long-term, but we obviously have seen this isn’t good for the long-term
stability of the economy. To me, it’s as
if you prefer investing for your long-term future by frequenting Las Vegas
instead of an “old- fashion” savings account or investing in shiny metals and
rocks that still seem to grow in allure since caveman days.
Now my personal opinion probably means I should just move to
another country that has collectively figured it out better instead of saying
we need to manage our money better, pay more in taxes, spend more on education,
research, public transportation and healthcare (universal). To me, it's not class warfare to raise taxes
a little on very wealthy people; it's class warfare when you don't and MOST
people are doing pretty poorly by comparison.
I don’t need a lot to live a comfortable, nice life. I also don’t want my nation’s government to
take from the rich and just give it to the poor – even though this sharing idea
is how things worked before civilization if you wanted to survive often. You’re doing pretty good and the family in
the hut or tree next door isn’t doing so well, you share the extras you have.
And when you’re down on your luck and they’re doing swell, the favor is returned. We probably wouldn’t have made it beyond
tribes if we had the mentality many have today.
So much for coming together to help your neighbors (towns and states)
and fellow tribe members (U.S. citizens) in which sharing what you had with
everyone for the greater good was what you had to do to survive in hard
times.
Taxes and government hoopla aside, I think we've become a
much greedier, selfish nation than we were just a few decades ago. There was a time when it was OK to "get
by" or that making two or three times more than the national average was a
wealthy/rich lifestyle. What happened to
us that 10, 20 or 100 times the national average isn't enough? Even if you don’t want to take into
consideration how well those that live around the poverty line have it in
places like the U.S. compared to billions of others around the world, there’s a
point when we need to calm it down with inventing more insanely expensive
things to spend the money we think we need.
I understand getting angry about government spending and
poor management with good agencies, but we don't seem to care enough to elect
decent "representatives" to congress or establish a better way of
doing so, so it's kind of hard to complain about that in turn. Elect the rich and they will try to protect
the rich, i.e. themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment