• phatskat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember how good the economy was in the 50’s and 60’s? Wanna guess what the tax rate on the wealthy was? It was 91%. This was the “golden age of American capitalism”, and that tax revenue kicked off a slew of public works projects that boosted the economy.

    • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I asked fir a source that demonstrates that wealth taxes work not that higher tiers of income tax work which is what you are talking about.

      Considering that you do not know the difference between these things you should be less certain as to how any of this works.

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What semantics game? I asked for a source supporting the claim regarding wealth taxes. You have not provided one and a different account, not you, demonstrated they don’t know the difference between wealth and income taxes. They were confused whereas you haven’t backed your claim.

          So do you have a source?

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wikipedia is not a great source for things like this. In fact it does not support the notion that there is no capital flight.

              Given your comments here Im not sure you are in a position to determine how educated people are on taxation.

                • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your first source states that it does not impact entrepreneurship which is not a point I addressed but does not support or refute your claim.

                  Your second source are non-experts as lawyers are not economists and this is a question of economics not law.

                  So again what is going on is that you do not have the level of understanding you think you do. Rather than recognizing that lack of understanding and taking a chance to learn you have decided to double down on the idea that you are correct when you have made it abundantly clear that you have no education in macroeconomics.