Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
If the far-right becomes more extreme, people will reject them because most people prefer moderate views.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine
that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for
a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually
paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.
Oh come on, don’t link me an article from a billionaire-sponsored think tank and expect me to take that as anything but propaganda for lower taxes. That is just what those think tanks are for.
I tried to find the article they link to as a source (their link is dead), and I think it might be this: https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf - here’s a quote from it:
“In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50% incomes and the upsurge in the top 1% coincided with reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation (particularly in the financial sector), weakened unions, and an erosion of the federal minimum wage”
So yeah, much more progressive taxation, stricter regulation of the financial sector (including whatever capital controls are necessary) and strengthening of unions. All great ideas. Not sure about the federal minimum wage, but that might be a different discussion.
What’s moderate is relative, and as people get more desperate they will reach for more extreme solutions. Trump’s policies would be unthinkable just a few decades ago.
I will repeat: as people get more desperate. And they will, because the status quo is that things are getting worse - so voting for the status quo, is voting that things should keep getting worse. People understand this.
This article says the same thing. The article is too long so I just read the conclusion. From https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_19.pdf
These four lines of reasoning all lead to the same end point: It is potentially misleading to imagine that U.S. taxes in the 1950s can serve as a model for a better approach in 2013. Income tax rates actually paid in the U.S. have remained stable for decades.
There are policies that can reduce inequality, but I don’t think Americans would approve of a socialist government. Mamdani is live experiment of whether socialistic policies will work.
Trump’s border policies would have been well received decades ago. Because of Trump, today’s status quo is too far to the right. Democrats should have policies more centrist.