[antonvs]

> First, for accuracy: the personal top marginal income tax rate during the Reagan-era was not 90%. When Reagan took office, it was 70%, which is where it had been since the 1960s.

First, for accuracy: it was above 90% from WWII up until 1963.

> the wealth situation in the world today

"The (developed) world" is not doing nearly as badly as the US. If the US was more closely aligned with Europe in terms of inequality, it'd be in much better shape.

> let's first acknowledge that not every profit-making company engages in the type of despicable behavior Facebook has.

I in no way claimed otherwise. Perhaps read my very short comment again, more carefully this time.

[ElProlactin]

> First, for accuracy: it was above 90% from WWII up until 1963.

Reagan took office in 1981. Is it that difficult to acknowledge that you posted something that was inaccurate, and move forward from it?

Also, as noted, basically nobody ever actually paid these rates.

> "The (developed) world" is not doing nearly as badly as the US. If the US was more closely aligned with Europe in terms of inequality, it'd be in much better shape.

Wealth inequality is higher in the US than it is in Europe, and this certainly has some nasty effects. But there's still significant wealth inequality in Europe and Europe has its own major economic problems, including wage stagnation, higher inflation (largely due to overdependence on imported energy), slower GDP and productivity growth, lower R&D spending, high structural unemployment (in some countries), greater reliance on bank lending due to weaker markets for equity financing, an overall environment that makes it harder for high-growth businesses to emerge, etc.

If you could somehow reduce wealth inequality in the US while avoiding the ills that plague Europe, then yes, the US would be "in much better shape."

We should also note that Europe isn't a country. In Sweden, the top 10% hold almost 75% of the wealth. In Germany, it's around 63%. Belgium has the lowest figure at around 43%. In the US, the top 10% holds 68% of the wealth, but what distinguishes it from countries like Sweden and Germany is the stunning growth in what the top 1% holds.

> I in no way claimed otherwise. Perhaps read my very short comment again, more carefully this time.

Your comment directly implied that taxation should be used to prevent companies from "getting to the point when it feels 'outlandish' to them to be punished for trying to destroy the society that granted them their wealth."

This isn't the purpose of taxation and if you tried to use it as such, you'd fail spectacularly.

[antonvs]

> Is it that difficult to acknowledge that you posted something that was inaccurate, and move forward from it?

What I take serious issue with is the deceptive and uncharitable nature of your "correction", which didn't mention that the number I quoted was real and in effect up until 1963.

The reason you're behaving like that is that in your desperate desire to defend the infrastructure that supports oligarchs, you need to cling to minor nitpicks because you don't have any serious points to make.

> Your comment directly implied that taxation should be used to prevent companies from "getting to the point when it feels 'outlandish' to them to be punished for trying to destroy the society that granted them their wealth."

Quoting my exact comment is not describing an implication. Perhaps you'd like to take another stab at incorrectly describing whatever you're imagining that I'm implying.

[ElProlactin]

> What I take serious issue with is the deceptive and uncharitable nature of your "correction", which didn't mention that the number I quoted was real and in effect up until 1963.

"Reagan-era" is the 1980s. You were off by almost two decades. That warranted a correction.

And as I noted, the number of people who this rate actually applied to was unbelievably small. To put it in precise terms: in 1963, only 501 returns out of approximately 50 million filers actually paid this rate. According to the Tax Foundation, the actual average effective tax rate for the top 1% of earners in 1962 was only ~16%. That's because, as I noted, there were tons of exclusions, deductions and shelters permitted, the biggest of which were removed as the tax rates were lowered.

Taking the position that tort law and consumer protection regulation, not punitive tax rates that will never actually be paid, is the way to deal with corporations behaving badly is common sense, not pro-oligarch.