Quote of the Day
It’s been slow coming, and far overshadowed by the rise of Trump. But one movement that’s finally seeing a bit of a breakthrough is “tax the rich.”
The landslide win this past week of a tax on millionaire pay in Seattle is the latest sign the public is agitated by massive wealth inequality — and finally willing to do something about it.
Danny Westneat
February 15, 2025
From Seattle to the Okanogan, ‘tax the rich’ is stirring | The Seattle Times
The unintended consequences of more taxes are so obvious and yet they did it anyway.
I am reminded of something Heinlein wrote in Time Enough for Love:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
I give up on these people. They deserve what is coming.
But their children don’t deserve it. Unfortunately, they are inseparable from their parents.
Kurt
The rise of the wealthy has happened all over the world, the rich get richer and the poor get poor until some catastrophe, revolution or outside conquest takes place.
Happens all over the world all throughout time.
What you want to track is the rise and fall of the middle class. IMHO that is an early indication of economic vitality.
There is always some numbnut screaming about wealth in the wrong hands. It’s usually some well off dude or dudette wanting to take some other well off people money for the good of the masses. The money never gets there.
The poor have gotten far richer, too. Look at the health care available to them versus 100 years ago. Or the technology of cell phones, the Internet, transportation, materials, and housing.
And yet in the 1950s we had both the most successful economy in history and a top tax rate of 90%. And a solid middle class, and far less wealth inequality.
And since then the tax rate has gone steadily down and the middle class has disappeared. Coincidence or causation?
Anyone who considers wealth inequality more important than wealth minimums is not worth having a discussion with.
The wealth minimum (aka poverty level) in 1955 was dramatically lower than it is now. Poverty has gone up over the last 70 years, not down.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-people/hstpov1.xlsx
Please define “poverty”, “poverty level”, and “wealth minimum.” Clearly you have some different definitions than and I might use.
Also note: I’m referring to organic poverty not net. Our net poverty rate has remained largely the same or gotten slightly better depending on which decade you look at as a result of social welfare programs. Welfare in various forms is a dramatically larger portion of state spending than it was in the 1950s and 60s.
I suppose one upside to Musk stripping away all the social programs is that we’ll see just how much poverty there really is in the U.S. Though I still don’t understand how people who claim to believe in “freedom” can also support massive centralization of power in a unitary executive. I guess kings were the way things were organized for so long ’cause folks really like being under control….
“Wealth minimums” are not “below poverty rates.”
The so-called “poverty rate” is merely defined as a certain percentage below the median income. Until they moved to Portland OR during middle of the Great Depression, my mom grew up in a tiny house in western Nebraska, where the water came from a hand-pump, they collected cow chips all summer which they burned in winter to heat the place, and used an outhouse. She and her brothers road a horse to school with a baked potato in their pocket as a handwarmer / lunch. Nowadays, virtually all the “poor” having running water, flush toilets, central heating, and nearby grocery stores, along with cell phones, flat-screen TVs, A/C and microwaves.
In any sort of objective, absolute sense, even the “poor” in the US today are vastly wealthier in material terms than their grandparents. They are just unaware and ungrateful.
“Nowadays, virtually all the “poor” having running water, flush toilets, central heating, and nearby grocery stores, along with cell phones, flat-screen TVs, A/C and microwaves.”
In Seattle we have an enormous homelessness problem. They have none of the things you mention, including running water and flush toilets.
On top of that we have a large class of people who are just above homeless: abjectly poor, but with a place to sleep and pee. So, woo-hoo! Not homeless!
The irony of your argument is that on the one hand you’re right, TVs and microwaves and cell phones and all the other luxuries of modern life are cheap compared to the past. On the other hand, housing is many times more expensive. Food is many times more expensive. Heathcare is inaccessible to a large part of the population. We’ve inverted the nature of poverty from “I have food, clothes, and shelter, but can’t afford luxury items” to “I can afford a cell phone and a $25 outfit from Shein, but can barely pay the rent and certainly can’t afford to go to the dentist.” The one common factor: potatoes – both the poor in your mother’s time and now are stuck with high-carb low quality food products.
“In Seattle we have an enormous homelessness problem. They have none of the things you mention, including running water and flush toilets.”
That’s because their drug addicts. And want drugs more than they want the minimums society has to offer.
The overwhelming majority of *long term* homelessness isn’t a money issue, it’s a mental health and/or substance abuse issue.
You’re missing the chicken or the egg issue: in a large percentage of modern homelessness the homelessness came first, the drugs and mental disorders later.
As it turns out, being forced to live on the streets makes you want to numb yourself in any way possible, and if you do it long enough and get desperate enough it’ll drive you crazy.
One of the ways you know that’s true are how well the “tiny village” setups have worked: give people a place to live and remove the constant threats to their survival and they move back into productive society fairly quickly.
See below.
The political left in Seattle spends about $165 million each year on the homeless. Have they improved things? How much more money must be taken from “the rich” to fix it? Or is lack of money not the problem?
The problem isn’t lack of money thrown at the problem, it’s that it’s been mis-used. The lefties in Seattle really want the perfect solution only, “good” just isn’t good enough. So even though we have lots of data that tiny house villages work well, they don’t want to spend money on them because “they’re not permanent housing.” Well, sure, and yes we should build more permanent housing. But fighting good solutions because they’re not the perfect solution (in your mind, mr. leftie) is stupid.
And there’s been a lot of that. And a lot of “studies,” and a lot of just incompetence because of what are in fact true DEI hires…people hired without competence, but instead because they were a loud voice in the “struggle” and “deserved” a position of leadership.
It’s only now that we have a more centrist council that people are starting to push back on all the BS from the previous council. Not sure if they’ll be able to fully turn it around, but certainly making progress.
Here’s a good illustration of the inversion of the luxury/basics price curve:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DFvN8CIJjEN/
DOGE is scheduled to be disbanded around mid-2026.
If you buy the biggest TV on your block, say, you are far more likely to get robbed (assuming it’s that kind of block), compared to the much more prosperous people 5 blocks over, who all have large TVs.
Yes inequality can be an issue…but not like people usually think.
Also, yes we have it and yes it’s increasing but in the grand scheme of things we have a great deal less of it than a lot of places do.
You must be new here…
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2012/11/04/quote-of-the-day-margaret-thatcher/
Also, the primary reason for the global dominance of the American economy in the 50’s was directly attributable to fact that a *vast* majority of the industrialized nations manufacturing capabilities (not to mention populations) were still recovering from WW2.
I always enjoy the “you just hate rich people” story. It’s absurd, but fun. In the real world, money equals power, and while there will always be power imbalances (some people are dumb and unskilled, some are smart and skilled, and many are just lucky), a quick look at a history book tells us that massive consolidations of power always end up badly for everyone involved.
So when you let a guy like Musk accumulate so much money that he can buy his way into the White House and do pretty much whatever he wants, you’re showing that in fact *you* are the statist. That’s not freedom for anybody but him and his Muskrats. Everybody else is just along for the ride.
That’s why folks like me want to tax the ultra-rich. Not because we don’t think rich people should exist, but because we know that allowing massive consolidation of power is always a bad idea, and there have to be limits. If there are no limits on how much money and power someone can get, we inevitably return to feudalism. And I don’t need a king, thanks.
Surely you don’t think Musk and Trump and the rest are saints who are just here out of the goodness of their hearts? If you do, I have some beachfront property to sell you….
A major reason for the wealth disparity in the US is our open borders. By pleading “labor shortage” big businesses have been allowed to import cheap labor, keeping a tight lid on wages. In 1965, the min wage was $1.25. Five silver quarters are today worth about $28. Why have wages been so far behind inflation? Free movement of labor as well as goods. The workers have had no leverage to raise their pay.
Meanwhile, industry has outsourced production of many “luxury good” like microwaves and cell phones to places with even lower wages (and fewer expensive environmental laws), meaning their isn’t the labor demand here to drive wages up.
That is a toxic combination for the middle class. Bring the jobs back home, send the immigrants back to enrich their own country, shrink the size of government (now in progress) and we’ll all be better off.
Also, you totally missed my point about the difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty and the conditions my mom grew up in. Do we have homeless here in Seattle? Yes, but it’s well under 1% of the population. Meanwhile, where my mom was growing up that was normal for that area, so something like a quarter or so of the population in those conditions. Seattle has homelessness because it supports / allows / encourages it.
I don’t see any import of cheap labor en masse (H1-Bs not withstanding), I see export of all labor possible to other countries. When I was at Expedia and wanted to open a new rec to hire someone we had to fill out a section that explicitly asked why the job couldn’t be done at one of our “partner” centers in India.
And yes, that’s been why we’ve got no middle class any more…they’re all in China and India.
So the question isn’t just “how do you bring manufacturing back to America,” it’s “How do you stop the flow of capital from ostensibly American companies (that really aren’t) to other countries?” The problem with our borders isn’t humans coming in, it’s capital going out. What I find particularly hysterical is the “partnership” of the Trump administration with the heads of these companies that send all our work abroad…and now Musk wants more H1-Bs so he can *import* cheap labor from abroad.
The guy “reforming” the system wants to make it worse.
Decreasing spending and destroying government institutions used to control people is not an indication of “massive consolidation of power.”
As long as they are removing power from government, I will remain cautiously optimistic. When they add more letters to the ATFE and/or create other agencies to restrict constitutionally protected rights, and/or increase spending I will be convinced you have a point.
The massive consolidation of power has already happened, it’s over. The fact that Musk can do what he’s doing without limit is exactly the consolidation I’m talking about. The stuff he does after is just gravy.
I’m all for making government smaller, but I’d like that to happen via rule of law and democratic process, not executive fiat.
Would you prefer a massive, unelected, and unaccountable permanent bureaucracy, or a strong executive model where the guy we elect can actually do something? That is the crux of the choice.
No, I don’t like everything they are doing. But I do like a lot of it, and much of it desperately needs to be done.
“the guy we elect.” Um, what about all those other people we elect? Shouldn’t they have a say? That’s normally how “representative” democracy works.
I think the framers had it right that we need checks and balances. The “strong executive who can get shit done” is just a euphemism for a dictator. It’s right there in the title: someone who dictates what gets done. And the framers *explicitly* said that was a bad idea. Apparently folks today have decided they’re smarter than Jefferson et. al. Which is problematic when you start making 2nd amendment arguments…were they wrong about that too? Do we follow the constitution as a whole, or just the bits we like?
Wrt bureaucracy, sure, we need checks and balances there as well. Get rid of the cruft on a regular basis. But you can do that by fully funding auditors and acting on their findings…you don’t need a dictator for that. You do, however, have to have enough spine to kill your own darlings when the auditor finds they’re wasteful. And no politician wants to do that….
” And no politician wants to do that…”
Thanks for making Rolf’s point.
Trump is turning out to be the check and balance.
Killing all the darlings.
And he’s done nothing illegal, that hasn’t been being done to us in reverse for a 100 years.
That “90%” tax rate had more loopholes, deductions, and exceptions to it that it’s not in any way comparable to a similar rate today. Claiming so is deceptive.
I have no idea how to argue with the idea that 1950s tax code was somehow more loophole-ridden than today’s, other than to say “You can’t be serious…”. I’m not an accountant, but my time in corporate America (and now small-business America) tells me there are more holes in modern tax code than a loofah sponge. I’d argue the current tax code is more hole than code. But I’m not a tax expert, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so….
Well, your time in corporate should have at least imparted upon you that nobody ever pays a 90% tax. Ever.
He’ll, your time spent among actual human beings should have taught you that. Nobody will work at 10% take home.
I know you can’t argue it, because not only is your contention patently ridiculous, but it’s also false.
EXAMPLES:
About 2000, CA enacted a 10% surcharge tax on those with a yearly paycheck of $1Million. There were 28 THOUSAND in that category. 1/3 of them instantly left the state, along with whatever businesses they could move.
Last year, they added a further 3% surcharge to the remaining 18 HUNDRED high earners. Again, 1/3 instantly left.
IIRC, the normal tax rate for high earners is 11%. Add the federal rate, and you are talking ~ 52% income tax.
I question anyone who sees a benefit to be gained from leveling the industrial areas of Europe and Asia, so that not one scorched brick stands upon another, and killing TWENTY MILLION plus human beings so Americans can sell their wares all over the world for twenty-five years again.
And I question anyone who reads into a statement of fact, a motivation that isn’t there (or even hinted at).
I never said it was a good thing that Europe, Russia, China, and Japan were leveled, nor did I even *imply* that said leveling was motivated by an American desire to establish global economic dominance. Europe and Asia were at war, with Germany and Japan being the primary aggressors and devastating their respective territories, LONG before America even entered the war.
I merely pointed out the fact that the RESULT of that war was economic devastation on a global scale with America’s (manufacturing) economy remaining largely untouched. It also bears pointing out that the rebuilding of those devastated territories played a not-insignificant role in the strong American economy from the mid 40’s on through the 60’s.
If global economic dominance were the motivation for America to enter the war, then it would have been in America’s own self interest to NOT rebuild those economies (competition).
“Thou shall not covet.”
The Democrat Party is the party of sin.
Breaking all ten commandments is in its DNA.
And, let’s face it: Once you worship baby-murder, breaking the other nine must be like child’s-play.
Straight up. Most “rich”, people produce products. And taxes are just a cost of producing that product.
There is not a rich person on earth that does not simply add the tax onto the cost of that product.
Tax an egg producer 50% and your eggs go from a $1.00 to a $1.50.
Doctor in the 50% bracket wants to make a $1,000.00 dollars on an operation is going to charge you $1,500.00 dollars. Cause he knows everyone else in his profession is in the same bracket. (Or “racket”, if you will.)
CONSUMERS PAY ALL TAXES. Period, end, full stop.
It was known long before Marx. But somehow the commie morons bitterly cling to the notion.
And for politicians, on their finest day they’re extortionists.
Best described by Megadeth; “If you shake their hand, better count your fingers.”
Taxes are punishment by human parasite for being honest.
John. S.
“You’re missing the chicken or the egg issue: in a large percentage of modern homelessness the homelessness came first, the drugs and mental disorders later.”
In a word, BULLSHIT.
The mission in So. Oregon had empty beds every night, know why? You had to be sobber to stay there. And there was a Shit-ton of programs to help you find a job and get you, and your family off the street.
I myself got stuck short a bunch of different times.
Several times I lived out of the back of my pickup. Got up. Found a job. Took spit-baths at the local freeway rest stop. Ate with a gas barbecue off my tailgate. Scrapped the snow off and went to work the next day.
Sucks? Ya, bigtime. But it ain’t that hard if you’re willing.
The problem is the communist takeover of society is willing to pay people to play the victim.
And if you want to be a victim, you always will be.
The facts are there has never been an easier time in history to get off the street.
Quite making excuses for people to be useless.
To the typical leftist…and Seattle is overrun with them… the term “tax the rich” means tax EVERYONE but me.