| Years ago a FB friend posted something along the lines "every country where the debt is 100% of GDP ended up with runaway inflation." (It's been a decade; I've forgotten the exact details.) It was easy to point out that the US had >100% ratio in the 1940s, due to WWII, without the consequences he postulated. I then found it was a "tribal point" going around, that he was repeating without investigating. This claim that taxes now are the highest ever felt like the same sort of "tribal point." How does one challenge an seemingly wrong assertion without also being labelled "tribal"? Especially in a field so contentious as this where there are position papers upon position papers for- and against- just about every point you can think of. FWIW, I think the premise is flawed. Rich people put their assets in trusts and foundations, which are not subject to the same taxes, and yet controlled by the them and their family. (For example, "Patagonia Billionaire Who Gave Up Company Skirts $700 Million Tax Hit; Founder Yvon Chouinard structured the transfer of his firm in a way that keeps control within the family and avoids taxes." - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia... ) Because those savings aren't paid taxes, they don't show up in charts which summarize only those taxes paid. So when "liberals in the US [talk about how] taxes are too low", I believe it also refers to the legal techniques rich people use to avoid paying taxes, including through laws which were specifically created for this purpose. |