6 ms·

1. America needs to repeal citizens united, it's the source of many angles of corruption 2. I think it will happen much sooner than 2245 given how easily capit

1. America needs to repeal citizens united, it's the source of many angles of corruption 2. I think it will happen much sooner than 2245 given how easily capital and the rich are able to move around the globe in 2026 (compared to 1945)

roosterIllusi0n 22d ago
We simply need to bring back that 90% federal income tax bracket we had in the 1950s. If we had the same tax policy today, a CEO or investor would be limited to 5 million dollars a year in earnings. This is what fixed everything. If a CEO cannot personally get richer by cutting wages, cutting staffing, and outsourcing; all of it stops. That was the secret of affordability. Don't let a thousand rich people own everythjng. Tax them so we can have millions of working millionaires instead of 900 non-working billionaire elites. As those 1950s taxes and post 1929 financial regulations were cut in the following decades, the wealth inequality that led to the great depression has returned.
- HumblyTossed 22d ago
  This is more a result of Clinton's failed CEO pay reform. It is what created this monster, not the tax bracket. Now, saying that, we DO need to tax these people higher. Eliminate all the ways they're able to squirm out from paying a fair share.
- maerF0x0 22d ago
  I disagree on this. It's not the wealth that is the issue, it's the corruption that allows wealth to be converted into power. Citizens united is so backwards that it actually encodes the corruption as a right.
- gwbrooks 22d ago
  Marginal tax rates are meaningless because, even in the 1950s, the system was complex and can be gamed. If you want to judge the net effect of tax policy over time, look at the percentage of GDP captured by federal receipts (the vast majority of which are taxes). In the U.S., it's averaged ~16.5%-~17.5% with occasional spikes and dips. Currently, it's very close to what it was in those 90%-marginal-rates 1950s.
ClarityJones 22d ago
Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big sign. We want to encourage private business > limiting liability for owners who do not participate in the business would increase access to capital > we offer corporate forms that shield investors from liability > identity of owners may be kept confidential. People complain about the wrong thing. The problem isn't that people are allowed to support candidates with their money, buy airtime, etc.. It's that companies have secret owners...
- Forgeties79 22d ago
  > People complain about the wrong thing. The problem isn't that people are allowed to support candidates with their money, buy airtime, etc.. It's that companies have secret owners... This was a major crux of Colbert’s “our lady of perpetual exemption” bit. People absolutely know about the shadowy machinations CU enabled. The lack of transparency is a major critique.
  - ClarityJones 22d ago
    I wouldn't say CU enabled it. CU didn't address the secrecy of corporate forms. That wasn't at issue. CU was only about ~"Can people use money with their friends to support a candidate." To say that repealing CU is the solution is to allow the critique to go unresolved, while arguing ~"People shouldn't be free to support political candidates."
- some_furry 22d ago
  > Citizens United is a very sound ruling. Corporations only have the powers granted to them by the state. Contributing to politics need not be one of them.
  - ClarityJones 22d ago

roosterIllusi0n 22d ago

We simply need to bring back that 90% federal income tax bracket we had in the 1950s. If we had the same tax policy today, a CEO or investor would be limited to 5 million dollars a year in earnings. This is what fixed everything. If a CEO cannot personally get richer by cutting wages, cutting staffing, and outsourcing; all of it stops. That was the secret of affordability. Don't let a thousand rich people own everythjng. Tax them so we can have millions of working millionaires instead of 900 non-working billionaire elites. As those 1950s taxes and post 1929 financial regulations were cut in the following decades, the wealth inequality that led to the great depression has returned.

HumblyTossed 22d ago
This is more a result of Clinton's failed CEO pay reform. It is what created this monster, not the tax bracket. Now, saying that, we DO need to tax these people higher. Eliminate all the ways they're able to squirm out from paying a fair share.
maerF0x0 22d ago
I disagree on this. It's not the wealth that is the issue, it's the corruption that allows wealth to be converted into power. Citizens united is so backwards that it actually encodes the corruption as a right.
gwbrooks 22d ago
Marginal tax rates are meaningless because, even in the 1950s, the system was complex and can be gamed. If you want to judge the net effect of tax policy over time, look at the percentage of GDP captured by federal receipts (the vast majority of which are taxes). In the U.S., it's averaged ~16.5%-~17.5% with occasional spikes and dips. Currently, it's very close to what it was in those 90%-marginal-rates 1950s.

ClarityJones 22d ago

Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big sign. We want to encourage private business > limiting liability for owners who do not participate in the business would increase access to capital > we offer corporate forms that shield investors from liability > identity of owners may be kept confidential. People complain about the wrong thing. The problem isn't that people are allowed to support candidates with their money, buy airtime, etc.. It's that companies have secret owners...

Forgeties79 22d ago
> People complain about the wrong thing. The problem isn't that people are allowed to support candidates with their money, buy airtime, etc.. It's that companies have secret owners... This was a major crux of Colbert’s “our lady of perpetual exemption” bit. People absolutely know about the shadowy machinations CU enabled. The lack of transparency is a major critique.
- ClarityJones 22d ago
  I wouldn't say CU enabled it. CU didn't address the secrecy of corporate forms. That wasn't at issue. CU was only about ~"Can people use money with their friends to support a candidate." To say that repealing CU is the solution is to allow the critique to go unresolved, while arguing ~"People shouldn't be free to support political candidates."
some_furry 22d ago
> Citizens United is a very sound ruling. Corporations only have the powers granted to them by the state. Contributing to politics need not be one of them.
- ClarityJones 22d ago