[noncoml]

> Safe to say they wouldn't agree here

Maybe because they do not like to blindly follow the "leader", but instead prefer to judge for themselves?

Democrats don't want "bad" immigration as much as you do. No-one wants criminals or people who are unwilling to follow the law.

I am not an immigration expert, but blanket rules and blanket statements are seldom giving good results.

When the right says ban immigrants they sounds as stupid as when the left says ban billionaires.

[quaverquaver]

marginal tax rates reached 94% in 1944 on income over 200k in the US. The high marginal tax regime gave rise to a period of relative equality. Nothing stupid about it - if a long right tail is a social ill (it is) then why have it?

[csa]

> marginal tax rates reached 94% in 1944 on income over 200k in the US.

Tell me you’re young without saying you’re young.

Those headline rates were not the rates actually paid.

The quantity and scope of tax write offs at that time were substantial and often generous. The tax reform act of 1986 lowered the headline rates and substantially reduced the scope of deductions.

As such, referring to that “high taxation” era as some sort of halcyon days due to the tax rates is quite misguided.

If you ever want to hear a tax accountant get excited, talk to one who was practicing in the 80s. The stories you will hear…

[noncoml]

That's different than chanting "Ban Billionaires"

[AngryData]

Who would still be a billionaire at that tax rate?

[jleyank]

Depends on what’s taxed at 94%. If it’s wages, they’ll just switch to passive 8ncome or stock/loans as they use now. If it’s all income, there’s going to be total change in the us compensation system.

[AngryData]

If the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots and/or changes in how income is defined, so in the end I don't think it would matter. It would have to settle one way or another in short order, although it could get pretty bloody.

[jleyank]

For whatever reasons, there were weren’t riots in the 50’s. Perhaps the complex financial games weren’t present, or perhaps information flow was insufficient to reveal them. Or, maybe, income inequality was much smaller and there wasn’t ways to massively increase one’s holdings.

There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list.

[noncoml]

I don't know how you simplify things so much... Do you want 94% tax on stocks? Why stop at stocks? How about property? Your house's net worth?

The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare?

Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance?

Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires?

At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944?

If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit.