So, i was away from home last night and duly started watching the debate on DVR when i got home... and promptly fell asleep.
I did get through most of the first hour +/- and what I saw felt like an argument between 1990s / early Aughts-era Democrats. Except people were taking the Kuciniches and Browns in the debate seriously.
I'd like to offer the following argument and any of the rhetoric to Mr. Yang or Senators Warren or Sanders (or anyone else who wants to lead us truly forward - like progressives) with no strings attached:
I did get through most of the first hour +/- and what I saw felt like an argument between 1990s / early Aughts-era Democrats. Except people were taking the Kuciniches and Browns in the debate seriously.
I'd like to offer the following argument and any of the rhetoric to Mr. Yang or Senators Warren or Sanders (or anyone else who wants to lead us truly forward - like progressives) with no strings attached:
The fundamental economic arguments of our era are founded on a false preconception. Our politicians argue about how to deploy resources and whether some services to citizens (for example the ability to offer health care to all of them regardless of their level of wealth) are "too expensive". The central question of cost, though is the falsehood that we are living under.
Since The New Deal, the rich and powerful have been clawing back control of the money. All of the money. This is most visibly and simply illustrated in tax rates over time. Prior to The Great Depression, the top income tax rate bracket was 25% for income over $1.3M dollars (in adjusted dollars).
After the great crash, and the fundamental understanding that things had to change for most people (but prior to FDR or any New Deal action), that top rate jumped to 63%. This top rate was only for income of over $16.75M dollars - but $1M was now at 35%. It's important to note, this change happened in 1932, before FDR and our current "modern" progressive state came into effect.
Thereafter, top rates jumped to 79% (for any income over around $81M per year) to 81% (in 1941) to 88% to a high of 94% (again, only for the most egregious amounts of annual income). This top rate (closer to 91%) stays in effect for 18 years or so (1945 - 1963). Thereafter it only falls to about 70% for the next 19 years until 1982 (a year after the "Reagan Revolution") when it falls, first to 50% in 1982 and then to 38% in 1987 (approximately our current levels - though that doesn't tell near the whole story).
The entire premise of the "Great" America (which Republicans imply is something that needs to be found... "again") came out of the New Deal, and a promise by our country that workers ('the working class') can have a Middle Class lifestyle. Of course our racist, sexist process of unfolding this promise wasn't the real fulfillment it was meant to be, but these tax rates were at the foundation of our first attempt.Whenever someone asks in a political conversation whether or "how we can afford" some of the largest ideas of universal healthcare, universal basic income, or the Green New Deal there are two clear answers:
- We truly cannot afford not to do these things.
- Also, we could simply raise the income tax rates on top earnings* back to the historical levels we had in the 1950s, under Republican leadership, which lead to the opportunity for anyone working a job to take part in the Middle Class^
* Note: it's important to point out that the 90% top tax rates doesn't tax all of the income from high earners, only that income that is above the approved amount. This means that the first $100K or so that those people earn is taxed at the exact same rate as people who only earn that much - the higher rates only apply to the excessive income.
^ Note: We are now able to work more toward making this distribution fairer, and must work to overcome the mistakes of the past (e.g. reparations, equal pay for women, LGBTQ equity, student loan forgiveness {perhaps high-interest predatory lending debt forgiveness entirely}.
