833

Compared to 37 today (i.redd.it)

submitted 3 days ago by FiftyFiftyOne@50501.chat to c/Mirror@50501.chat

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Originally Posted By u/FuturePowerful At 2025-03-27 10:18:54 AM | Source

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There were very few people this applied to.

The real reason is the corporate tax rate. It was 52%. Today it’s 21%, and it’s effectively close to zero for many corporations with the tax loopholes used to avoid taxation. Shell corporations, deferring taxes, what have you.

So the US has lost more than 50% of the corporate taxes collected since the ‘50s.

E: the decline in tax % is pretty closely followed by the dramatic rise in CEO compensation.

The wealth being funneled to the top by cutting corporate tax got us the billionaire oligarchs we’re dealing with today.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago

We are long overdue for a hard reset. We need a new government with a modern democracy, then the assets of the top 0.1% need to be nationalized. Let them keep enough wealth to still be in the top 10%, but hit them hard and fast. Also, we should do what china does and to end offshoring by forcing companies to sell 20% of their company to the US government if they want access to our markets. Next, we need tax breaks for companies who spend more money compensating their workers than giving money to the parasitic shareholders.

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Let them keep enough wealth to still be in the top 10%, but hit them hard and fast.

That's fine for the ones who cooperate.

[-] Wuorg@50501.chat 1 points 2 days ago

Seeing the numbers laid out, even though I already knew it was bad, is profoundly depressing.

[-] laserm@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

The wealth was also built on the back of exploited Afro Americans. Remember that even Brown happened in the middle of the fifties.

[-] SendPrudes@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes but that was when manufacturing was 33% of the workforce.

Today it’s only 8%. Machinery and robots do the labor and generate extreme wealth in tech and other spaces.

So theoretically you would not REQUIRE the same degrees of exploitation to achieve a middle class similar to that time period.

The win of factory and laborers work is unionization. Tech means decentralized workforce and less likelihood to trust your peers and unionize which was one of the largest wins of the 50s. When you are rubbing elbows with your coworkers - and are geographically living through similar cost of living as your colleagues - you are more likely to strike or require the same or similar types of improvements at the same moments.

[-] isdwtcsnnd@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

What people in the US are failing to understand is that there are still good manufacturing jobs in the US today. Pharmaceuticals, aerospace, biotech, etc. They’re just on the higher end and require some type of technical or bachelors degree. Although, with the current regime and how they want to run (or not run) education, makes it seem like they want to bring us back to a developing country status where labor standards are low and manufacturing jobs are “low skilled.”

[-] SendPrudes@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah totally agree - which should make workers movements that prioritize wins for all American workers the goal. Child care / education systems that work / health care coverage that works - helps the 8% rugged manufacturing as well as like 50% of the active work force. Vs. bringing back high labor work / low skill - which if we pull it off would mean I what? 2-4% expansion of those industries? So…. 12% of the workforce would be prioritized? (as they expand those sectors).

Internal manufacturing to secure specific interests makes sense. (Medical supplies like during COVID or reduction of reliance from certain super powers sure.

But the current admin is at odds with financing sectors or even stimulating or supporting sectors with policy (it’s actively cutting and damaging policy in them) while also slamming tariffs across the very same sectors.

So it makes no sense. But that’s what I figured going into all this. We are reducing class mobility, while reducing health and safety, with every policy and cut. While increasing the debt simultaneously. It’s wild.

[-] isdwtcsnnd@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

Anyone that thinks these fascists running the country want to go back to the 1950s hasn’t been paying attention. They want to go back to 1850s, when women and minorities were second class citizens or not citizens at all and white Anglo Saxon Christian men ran everything.

[-] Wuorg@50501.chat 1 points 2 days ago

They want to go back to a past that doesn't exist except in their minds.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago

And really only included white Christians.

[-] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

And men. Single women had few options.

[-] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 21 points 3 days ago

Anyone with a billion dollars should be taxed at 110%

[-] groolthedemon@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

I hate that people will argue that highly taxing billionaires is disciplining success. Really? In what way? At what point is the success of their brand, product, or company no longer really theirs? When you're a megacorp with hundreds of thousands of employees what about the success they are producing? It's preposterous to keep holding these oligarchs up on a pedestal and continuing to pretend that they add any real benefit to anything other than the optics their PR people invent for them.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago

Also, define success. Please, seriously, just do.

Billionaires have failed as humans. They are complete failures. Zero respect for them or their means of money grabbing.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

Agreed. Also, billionaires like Musk would still be able to skirt around those taxes by sharing his wealth with his 50 children and baby mamas so it wouldn't even hurt him, it would just limit how much power a single person could have.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Entertainment IP creators like Taylor Swift and JK Rowling is mainly down to their success.

[-] groolthedemon@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Yeah, but I would say that is the outlier not the norm. Though, I'm arguing success not talent. At what point has your talent gotten you x amount of fame and fortune and at what point do you not 100% own that success? In both cases, Taylor and JK have an entire crew around them. Makeup Artists, PR people, media personalities, photographers, managers, band members, roadies, and so on and so forth. At what point is a CEO or even a self starter not really 100% owning what the company, product, or persona is? At what point is it down to thousands if not millions of people holding you up? I just think it is something that no economy has ever really determined. It takes a village whether it is fans, consumers, family, friends, coworkers, associates or whatever to build something that can be considered great. I just feel like there's a point where a person really needs to step away and say that it is no longer just MINE anymore, but I'm not greedy either.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

At what point is it down to thousands if not millions of people holding you up?

I agree with your broader point. For example, Warren Buffet has not done $150bn of work.

Swift and Rowling do have support to make their pie grow much larger than 1bn, but I chose those billionaires because without their contribution there would be no pie at all.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago

Imagine if the doctor who invented the vaccine for polio demanded a billion dollars. Everyone would be rightfully disgusted even though it was one of the most valuable contributions to humanity of all time. The polio vaccine has saved our country trillions.

Now why is a singer entitled to billions if a vaccine scientists aren't? No one needs or deserves billions. No one.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Not here to argue comparative renumeration.

My point is that there are some individuals are directly worth +1bn. 10 million people paid much more than $100 to see Swift's last tour. That's objective fact, not subjective opinion.

I would certainly join 1bn other people to give the polio vaccine inventor $1.

load more comments (15 replies)

[-] Wilco@lemm.ee 35 points 3 days ago

Don't forget it took a democratic US president getting elected four times in a row to set up that tax rate. This tax status took about 30 years to fully reverse.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago

But then they'd have to dodge taxes by reinvesting in their company's reputation and their workers. Instead of just cashing out, they'd have to maintain the company reputation as an asset that would pay them forever, as long as the company stayed healthy.

Is that what we really want?

[-] AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Ronald Reagon and his trickle-down economics.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes, but don't forget that liberals had many many chances to undo the damage Republicans did but they never would. Why? Because liberals are capitalists and capitalist politicians ultimately serve the capital class first and foremost

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

And the highest rate of union membership in US history.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] WickedPissah@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

And the 50s were a horrible time for women!!

[-] FoolishAchilles@lemm.ee 14 points 3 days ago

That’s right folks, if you want prosperity, eat the fuckin rich

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

Except that is entirely incorrect? It is almost solely because the USA was 50% of the world economy at the time. Restoring the top marginal tax rate to 91% will not return us to prosperity

[-] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

It was a bit of a one-off because Europe was in rubble post war and lots of money flowed to the US.

[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

I say let’s try anyway

[-] stopdropandprole@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

agreed. taxing the ultra rich is the only legal method available to the 99% to redistribute wealth back down the masses who have been systematically robbed and exploited and manipulated by oligarchs. who cares if revenues go up or down? either we tax the robber barons or we seize their assets... or our kids and grandkids will be destitute.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025

833 points (100.0% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

607 readers

820 users here now

Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

aurorabell@50501.chat

PineapplePen@50501.chat

Transcendent5050@50501.chat

karshpolrev@50501.chat

thatonelinuxdude@50501.chat

wat_anon@50501.chat