[boosturpud]

> Redistribution can only get you so far.

That "so far" being a middle class the envy of the rest of the world which the US threw away to create a new class of oligarch.

"Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket."

https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...

[simianwords]

Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy? Like literally everywhere else in the world?

No other country has 91% taxes and all those who tried dialled it back. India tried it and it was hilariously bad.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy?

Citation needed that it's not a good policy. Parent comment explained why it was good, and your reply is "or perhaps it was actually bad".

There's a simpler explanation as to why it was rolled back: the people with the most money and power didn't like it and wanted it gone, and worked over time to accomplish this.

[simianwords]

so it could be two reasons

1. 90% tax is a net good for society but big bad capitalists colluded to reduce it in every country independently

or

2. 90% is actually a bad policy and every country independently adopted against it including Nordic countries, China, India, USA

you decide which one is more likely.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

It's not "90% tax" it's 90% or similar tax rate at the highest band, which most people will never reach.

Despite you showing your bias by phrasing option 1 to look childish, I think it's more or less what happened, actually. It doesn't take much "collusion", just greed and short-sighted self-interest from greedy, short-sighted self-interested people with influence to wield.

And you till haven't cited how that 1) this definitely didn't happen and 2) high tax rates in the highest band is a bad idea.