[Psychology] The rich tell them… 🫤
how could you be against socialism/communism as a black person
1/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.net
Road map to the death of capitalism.
2/13
beallyoucanbop.hellthread.cc
did u say socialism or barbarism
3/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.net
I hope socialism.
4/13
beallyoucanbop.hellthread.cc
we hope socialism, comrade
5/13
socialismforall.bsky.social
What's this from?
6/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.net
Das Capital.
Between table of contents and start of book.
7/13
socialismforall.bsky.social
Well, I'll be
8/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.net
Chunky boi.
9/13
depresseddeveloper.bsky.social
I wish Marx would have applied some standardized flowchart or swim lanes for readability.
But for real, has anyone taken a crack at updating this?
10/13
eddyrobinson.bsky.social
Thomas Piketty? There's also a Marxist economist whose name escapes me right now that did an interesting book digging into the distribution/logistics industrial sector and pointing out how it fills some gaps in Marx's original theory
11/13
ffswtf.bsky.social
I love how it’s either decay or socialism.
12/13
billwalter.bsky.social
Fake capitalist oligarchs have been maligning true capitalism and Adam Smith since the beginning.
Why? Because Smith's work details how exploitation is not only morally wrong, it's also counterproductive.
Parasites don't make you stronger, they make you sick.
www.dailykos.com/stories/2025...
American Values and the Disinformation Campaign Against “Capitalism”
13/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.net
The power they wield over the working class isn't fake. It's very real, and the effects are very harmful to us and the environment.
Capitalism itself is a pay to play ideology. And right now, it's pay to live.
But "true" capitalism is the stuff Milton Friedman wanted, no?
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.netRoad map to the death of capitalism.
2/13
beallyoucanbop.hellthread.ccdid u say socialism or barbarism
3/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.netI hope socialism.
4/13
beallyoucanbop.hellthread.ccwe hope socialism, comrade
5/13
socialismforall.bsky.socialWhat's this from?
6/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.netDas Capital.
Between table of contents and start of book.
7/13
socialismforall.bsky.socialWell, I'll be
8/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.netChunky boi.
9/13
depresseddeveloper.bsky.socialI wish Marx would have applied some standardized flowchart or swim lanes for readability.
But for real, has anyone taken a crack at updating this?
10/13
eddyrobinson.bsky.socialThomas Piketty? There's also a Marxist economist whose name escapes me right now that did an interesting book digging into the distribution/logistics industrial sector and pointing out how it fills some gaps in Marx's original theory
11/13
ffswtf.bsky.socialI love how it’s either decay or socialism.
12/13
billwalter.bsky.socialFake capitalist oligarchs have been maligning true capitalism and Adam Smith since the beginning.
Why? Because Smith's work details how exploitation is not only morally wrong, it's also counterproductive.
Parasites don't make you stronger, they make you sick.
www.dailykos.com/stories/2025...
American Values and the Disinformation Campaign Against “Capitalism”
13/13
justifiedmeh.mehcorp.netThe power they wield over the working class isn't fake. It's very real, and the effects are very harmful to us and the environment.
Capitalism itself is a pay to play ideology. And right now, it's pay to live.
But "true" capitalism is the stuff Milton Friedman wanted, no?
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
FD sums it up well i this recent video. Basically the State won
Why Black Liberals refuse to abandon Capitalism
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=z2S05eFpp8g
Channel Info Signified B Sides
Subscribers: 377K
Description
@baytinsopo commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 2,700
"can't black business your way out of imperialism"
thank you brother
@aMMgYrP commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 1,900
If the majority of your income isn't "passive" (Stocks, Bonds, Rent) then you aren't a capitalist; you're capital. Capitalists are owners. If you ain't an owner, you're owned.
│
│
│ @astridablaze5826 commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 0
│
│ And the only way to get to that point is exploitation of labor. I always tell people this. The goal has always been to step away and create self-sustainability.
│
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=z2S05eFpp8g
Channel Info Signified B Sides
Subscribers: 377K
Description
My Black Conservatives videos on the main channel -
1- • There's no such thing as a "Black Conserva...
2- • The REAL Faces of Black Conservatism
@lilbilliam video -
• we've been duped
A video that talks about reasonable ways to survive capitalism - • The Socialist guide to surviving in Capita...
Transcripts
Show transcript
1- • There's no such thing as a "Black Conserva...
2- • The REAL Faces of Black Conservatism
@lilbilliam video -
• we've been duped
A video that talks about reasonable ways to survive capitalism - • The Socialist guide to surviving in Capita...
Transcripts
Show transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2S05eFpp8g&lc=UgygSWA70947AlsinnN4AaABAg@baytinsopo commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 2,700
"can't black business your way out of imperialism"
thank you brother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2S05eFpp8g&lc=Ugw6sBG-oD7RK4xwM9d4AaABAg@aMMgYrP commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 1,900
If the majority of your income isn't "passive" (Stocks, Bonds, Rent) then you aren't a capitalist; you're capital. Capitalists are owners. If you ain't an owner, you're owned.
│
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2S05eFpp8g&lc=Ugw6sBG-oD7RK4xwM9d4AaABAg.AMpKu2mv1x6AMrLqXIFmUM│
│ @astridablaze5826 commented on Tuesday September 9, 2025 | Likes: 0
│
│ And the only way to get to that point is exploitation of labor. I always tell people this. The goal has always been to step away and create self-sustainability.
│
Last edited:
1/37
@GunnelsWarren
Since 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 70% to 37%, $79 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%, according to that bastion of socialism the RAND Corporation. Trickle down economics is a total scam.
2/37
@alsoJMc
3/37
@djtimm
Interesting thought Warren. Except that the total wealth of every billionaire in the US is less than $8 trillion dollars. That is not just their income, it is the value of everything they have. Where did the other $71 trillion go?
Do they all have McDuck style giant vaults filled with gold coins? Or did it trickle down to their companies, workers, and the general service industry?
4/37
@GestaltU
Link?
5/37
@altournas
How does keeping one’s own money translate to redistribution to one’s self?
6/37
@SockDemFan
Reaganomics has failed
7/37
@DragonStacker
Nobody paid anywhere near that. Effective tax rates in the top bracket were very similar to what they are now.
8/37
@Fatesblind
Top 1% pay 40% of federal taxes, more than the bottom 90% combined. That's real sacrifice for America. Let's celebrate hard work, not scapegoat success.
9/37
@Max_Sarcasium1
So, it was confiscated? None of that wealth was new wealth that was earned?
10/37
@therlybadglfer
Nothing has been redistributed, it hasn’t been handed as bribes for votes out after it was stolen.
11/37
@ToddforFL4
Citi explained exactly how it worked to their investors in 2005.
They explain in rich people terms how lowering their taxes is the plan, and the poor don't exist in their ideal economy.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/86/CITIGROUP-OCTOBER-16-2005-PLUTONOMY-MEMO.pdf
12/37
@MiamiVice152514
The government is supposed to regulate business in a way that provides fair competition such as antitrust legislation. That apparently went out the window and it appears the government instead wants to partner with large firms like Blackrock, JP Morgan, Amazon, etc. that are in direct competition with main street business.
Our government could easily outlaw Blackrock from buying masses of single family homes which is driving young people out of the market. Why don't they stop this? Is it because they want you to own nothing and be happy?
I do not blame billionaires for our current condition. They are predators and we should expect them to take advantage of the markets and people. It is our government politicians that have created all these billionaire funded NGO's so they can fund pet projects, launder money and accept bribes in exchange for favorable treatment. The politicians are supposed to protect the people from the predators and they have failed miserably while lining there own pockets. Look at all the rich politicians. Why do people not have a problem with people like Nancy Pelosi when it is obvious she is gaming the system? The masses are stupid.
13/37
@haniefhaider
/ZohranKMamdani /Tracking_Power /angeloinchina /FiorellaIsabelM
Further to my arguments, the financial system has been hijacked for a while now.
The Left's focus should be on it and forces mobilised to bring fairness.
Someone like /BuddyWells1 can not do this on his own.
It's a huge task.
14/37
@pjsandiegosdca
The greatest con in history. Give the wealthy more and they might share. Insane.
15/37
@DavidDaraskevi1
True.
16/37
@mwstateofmind
Life is better than ever for the bottom 1% due to the capitalist system that yes, also produces inequality. The question you have to ask yourself is,do you want a few people to be poor, or everyone to be poor?
17/37
@progresspatryat
truth
18/37
@JamesMuchLesser
The question is, what's happened to the wealth of the bottom 90%? Has it gone up or down?
19/37
@RealRickRule
Warren, US GDP was $1.68 T in 1975, so the economy has grown 15 fold. Perhaps leaving more money for private investment was a good thing
20/37
@GregorPepe
Good job America! Socialism for the 0,1% and capitalism for the rest.
21/37
@AlessandroBooks
No one paid the 70% rate in 1975 or before because of deductions that were repealed when the rate was cut in half due to the various tax simplification laws that had bipartisan support.
22/37
@mini_optimus
Do you think companies should pay even more tax than they currently do, so employees receive even less of what the employer pays, because the government is better at determining where taxpayers' money should go?
Imagine France: if the company pays $100,000, the employee will receive only $55,000 and the government take $45,000 of the employee's.
23/37
@BuddyWells1
The cause of the rise in money supply / debt in the US is the policy choice not to reduce extreme inequality.
Countries which fail to adequately distribute existing money supply broadly enough, suffer from insufficient aggregate demand to support full employment.
If their govt and central bank are mandated for full employment (as is the case in the US), then the response to inadequate demand must either be to consistently distribute existing money supply more broadly (reduce income inequality) or monetary and fiscal stimulus (adding to money supply / debt).
24/37
@Vinniegee34
You do understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? You also understand that in 1975 the top 1% of income earners paid about 17.5% of all income tax compared to 42% today? Those are rhetorical. I know you have no idea of what you're talking about.
25/37
@JBLuvsCeltic
You can't expect anyone working for Sanders to understand the impact of tax rates.
Per the Census Bureau Report H-17, 26.1% of households have income in excess of $150k vs 6.2% in 1975. This is using constant 2024 dollars.
At the other end of the table, the high marginal rates of the time appears to have contributed to more households being in the lower income brackets than today.
Trickle-down for the win!
Tables at Historical Income Tables: Households
26/37
@johnsonecon
27/37
@hoffman1953
But when the top tier was paying 70% they actually paid a less percentage of the countries total debt then when they were taxed at 37%. So your analysis has some holes in it.
28/37
@JohnRileyPoway
Who deserves that cash?
29/37
@BStarr96522
That is because, since 1975, we had the internet boom, which vastly expanded wealth for those who were in on the ground floor and made knowledge workers more valuable than others.
We also offshored manufacturing, reducing demand for industrial blue collar workers, and imported laborers who would work for peanuts, driving down their wages.
It was those circumstances and measures, not tax rates, which expanded inequality. Trump is trying to right those wrongs. It’s working.
30/37
@AEasteppe
No one at the top paid 70%
31/37
@Jim_Kozlinski
The bottom 40% of households get 70% of their income from the government, so remind me how the money was redistributed from the poor?
32/37
@yewie115
Trickle up inflation is very real.
Try raising minimum wage to $100 if you want to see $200 burritos.
33/37
@Charles91896846
Enjoys his chains
34/37
@Davo0820
/grok please explain to WARREN how the 90% of wealth has been distributed was calculated and why it’s not a true fact?
35/37
@sharitaylor2020
So it was Nixon not Reagan?
36/37
@MadCowReturns
they shifted the taxes to the middle and lower class the government is stealing peoples money
37/37
@IanPitchford
The 79 trillion dollar figure is from RAND, but it is a cumulative counterfactual earnings gap, not measured “wealth redistributed,” and RAND does not say tax cuts alone caused it. The top statutory rate did fall from about 70 percent to 37 percent, and inequality rose. The best cross-country evidence finds large tax cuts for the rich increase top shares without clear growth pay-offs. The tweet’s spirit is directionally right about trickle-down underperforming, but its wording overstates what RAND measured and blurs causation.
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
@GunnelsWarren
Since 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 70% to 37%, $79 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%, according to that bastion of socialism the RAND Corporation. Trickle down economics is a total scam.
2/37
@alsoJMc
3/37
@djtimm
Interesting thought Warren. Except that the total wealth of every billionaire in the US is less than $8 trillion dollars. That is not just their income, it is the value of everything they have. Where did the other $71 trillion go?
Do they all have McDuck style giant vaults filled with gold coins? Or did it trickle down to their companies, workers, and the general service industry?
4/37
@GestaltU
Link?
5/37
@altournas
How does keeping one’s own money translate to redistribution to one’s self?
6/37
@SockDemFan
Reaganomics has failed
7/37
@DragonStacker
Nobody paid anywhere near that. Effective tax rates in the top bracket were very similar to what they are now.
8/37
@Fatesblind
Top 1% pay 40% of federal taxes, more than the bottom 90% combined. That's real sacrifice for America. Let's celebrate hard work, not scapegoat success.
9/37
@Max_Sarcasium1
So, it was confiscated? None of that wealth was new wealth that was earned?
10/37
@therlybadglfer
Nothing has been redistributed, it hasn’t been handed as bribes for votes out after it was stolen.
11/37
@ToddforFL4
Citi explained exactly how it worked to their investors in 2005.
They explain in rich people terms how lowering their taxes is the plan, and the poor don't exist in their ideal economy.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/86/CITIGROUP-OCTOBER-16-2005-PLUTONOMY-MEMO.pdf
12/37
@MiamiVice152514
The government is supposed to regulate business in a way that provides fair competition such as antitrust legislation. That apparently went out the window and it appears the government instead wants to partner with large firms like Blackrock, JP Morgan, Amazon, etc. that are in direct competition with main street business.
Our government could easily outlaw Blackrock from buying masses of single family homes which is driving young people out of the market. Why don't they stop this? Is it because they want you to own nothing and be happy?
I do not blame billionaires for our current condition. They are predators and we should expect them to take advantage of the markets and people. It is our government politicians that have created all these billionaire funded NGO's so they can fund pet projects, launder money and accept bribes in exchange for favorable treatment. The politicians are supposed to protect the people from the predators and they have failed miserably while lining there own pockets. Look at all the rich politicians. Why do people not have a problem with people like Nancy Pelosi when it is obvious she is gaming the system? The masses are stupid.
13/37
@haniefhaider
/ZohranKMamdani /Tracking_Power /angeloinchina /FiorellaIsabelM
Further to my arguments, the financial system has been hijacked for a while now.
The Left's focus should be on it and forces mobilised to bring fairness.
Someone like /BuddyWells1 can not do this on his own.
It's a huge task.
14/37
@pjsandiegosdca
The greatest con in history. Give the wealthy more and they might share. Insane.
15/37
@DavidDaraskevi1
True.
16/37
@mwstateofmind
Life is better than ever for the bottom 1% due to the capitalist system that yes, also produces inequality. The question you have to ask yourself is,do you want a few people to be poor, or everyone to be poor?
17/37
@progresspatryat
truth
18/37
@JamesMuchLesser
The question is, what's happened to the wealth of the bottom 90%? Has it gone up or down?
19/37
@RealRickRule
Warren, US GDP was $1.68 T in 1975, so the economy has grown 15 fold. Perhaps leaving more money for private investment was a good thing
20/37
@GregorPepe
Good job America! Socialism for the 0,1% and capitalism for the rest.
21/37
@AlessandroBooks
No one paid the 70% rate in 1975 or before because of deductions that were repealed when the rate was cut in half due to the various tax simplification laws that had bipartisan support.
22/37
@mini_optimus
Do you think companies should pay even more tax than they currently do, so employees receive even less of what the employer pays, because the government is better at determining where taxpayers' money should go?
Imagine France: if the company pays $100,000, the employee will receive only $55,000 and the government take $45,000 of the employee's.
23/37
@BuddyWells1
The cause of the rise in money supply / debt in the US is the policy choice not to reduce extreme inequality.
Countries which fail to adequately distribute existing money supply broadly enough, suffer from insufficient aggregate demand to support full employment.
If their govt and central bank are mandated for full employment (as is the case in the US), then the response to inadequate demand must either be to consistently distribute existing money supply more broadly (reduce income inequality) or monetary and fiscal stimulus (adding to money supply / debt).
24/37
@Vinniegee34
You do understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? You also understand that in 1975 the top 1% of income earners paid about 17.5% of all income tax compared to 42% today? Those are rhetorical. I know you have no idea of what you're talking about.
25/37
@JBLuvsCeltic
You can't expect anyone working for Sanders to understand the impact of tax rates.
Per the Census Bureau Report H-17, 26.1% of households have income in excess of $150k vs 6.2% in 1975. This is using constant 2024 dollars.
At the other end of the table, the high marginal rates of the time appears to have contributed to more households being in the lower income brackets than today.
Trickle-down for the win!
Tables at Historical Income Tables: Households
26/37
@johnsonecon
27/37
@hoffman1953
But when the top tier was paying 70% they actually paid a less percentage of the countries total debt then when they were taxed at 37%. So your analysis has some holes in it.
28/37
@JohnRileyPoway
Who deserves that cash?
29/37
@BStarr96522
That is because, since 1975, we had the internet boom, which vastly expanded wealth for those who were in on the ground floor and made knowledge workers more valuable than others.
We also offshored manufacturing, reducing demand for industrial blue collar workers, and imported laborers who would work for peanuts, driving down their wages.
It was those circumstances and measures, not tax rates, which expanded inequality. Trump is trying to right those wrongs. It’s working.
30/37
@AEasteppe
No one at the top paid 70%
31/37
@Jim_Kozlinski
The bottom 40% of households get 70% of their income from the government, so remind me how the money was redistributed from the poor?
32/37
@yewie115
Trickle up inflation is very real.
Try raising minimum wage to $100 if you want to see $200 burritos.
33/37
@Charles91896846
Enjoys his chains 34/37
@Davo0820
/grok please explain to WARREN how the 90% of wealth has been distributed was calculated and why it’s not a true fact?
35/37
@sharitaylor2020
So it was Nixon not Reagan?
36/37
@MadCowReturns
they shifted the taxes to the middle and lower class the government is stealing peoples money
37/37
@IanPitchford
The 79 trillion dollar figure is from RAND, but it is a cumulative counterfactual earnings gap, not measured “wealth redistributed,” and RAND does not say tax cuts alone caused it. The top statutory rate did fall from about 70 percent to 37 percent, and inequality rose. The best cross-country evidence finds large tax cuts for the rich increase top shares without clear growth pay-offs. The tweet’s spirit is directionally right about trickle-down underperforming, but its wording overstates what RAND measured and blurs causation.
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
AMERICA WOULD USE WHATEVER SYSTEM TO OPPRESS YOU. SWITCHING TO ANOTHER SYSTEM ISN'T GOING TO MAGICALLY MAKE IT FAIR FOR US.
Bigblackted4
Superstar
1/37
@GunnelsWarren
Since 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 70% to 37%, $79 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%, according to that bastion of socialism the RAND Corporation. Trickle down economics is a total scam.
2/37
@alsoJMc
3/37
@djtimm
Interesting thought Warren. Except that the total wealth of every billionaire in the US is less than $8 trillion dollars. That is not just their income, it is the value of everything they have. Where did the other $71 trillion go?
Do they all have McDuck style giant vaults filled with gold coins? Or did it trickle down to their companies, workers, and the general service industry?
4/37
@GestaltU
Link?
5/37
@altournas
How does keeping one’s own money translate to redistribution to one’s self?
6/37
@SockDemFan
Reaganomics has failed
7/37
@DragonStacker
Nobody paid anywhere near that. Effective tax rates in the top bracket were very similar to what they are now.
8/37
@Fatesblind
Top 1% pay 40% of federal taxes, more than the bottom 90% combined. That's real sacrifice for America. Let's celebrate hard work, not scapegoat success.
9/37
@Max_Sarcasium1
So, it was confiscated? None of that wealth was new wealth that was earned?
10/37
@therlybadglfer
Nothing has been redistributed, it hasn’t been handed as bribes for votes out after it was stolen.
11/37
@ToddforFL4
Citi explained exactly how it worked to their investors in 2005.
They explain in rich people terms how lowering their taxes is the plan, and the poor don't exist in their ideal economy.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/86/CITIGROUP-OCTOBER-16-2005-PLUTONOMY-MEMO.pdf
12/37
@MiamiVice152514
The government is supposed to regulate business in a way that provides fair competition such as antitrust legislation. That apparently went out the window and it appears the government instead wants to partner with large firms like Blackrock, JP Morgan, Amazon, etc. that are in direct competition with main street business.
Our government could easily outlaw Blackrock from buying masses of single family homes which is driving young people out of the market. Why don't they stop this? Is it because they want you to own nothing and be happy?
I do not blame billionaires for our current condition. They are predators and we should expect them to take advantage of the markets and people. It is our government politicians that have created all these billionaire funded NGO's so they can fund pet projects, launder money and accept bribes in exchange for favorable treatment. The politicians are supposed to protect the people from the predators and they have failed miserably while lining there own pockets. Look at all the rich politicians. Why do people not have a problem with people like Nancy Pelosi when it is obvious she is gaming the system? The masses are stupid.
13/37
@haniefhaider
/ZohranKMamdani /Tracking_Power /angeloinchina /FiorellaIsabelM
Further to my arguments, the financial system has been hijacked for a while now.
The Left's focus should be on it and forces mobilised to bring fairness.
Someone like /BuddyWells1 can not do this on his own.
It's a huge task.
14/37
@pjsandiegosdca
The greatest con in history. Give the wealthy more and they might share. Insane.
15/37
@DavidDaraskevi1
True.
16/37
@mwstateofmind
Life is better than ever for the bottom 1% due to the capitalist system that yes, also produces inequality. The question you have to ask yourself is,do you want a few people to be poor, or everyone to be poor?
17/37
@progresspatryat
truth
18/37
@JamesMuchLesser
The question is, what's happened to the wealth of the bottom 90%? Has it gone up or down?
19/37
@RealRickRule
Warren, US GDP was $1.68 T in 1975, so the economy has grown 15 fold. Perhaps leaving more money for private investment was a good thing
20/37
@GregorPepe
Good job America! Socialism for the 0,1% and capitalism for the rest.
21/37
@AlessandroBooks
No one paid the 70% rate in 1975 or before because of deductions that were repealed when the rate was cut in half due to the various tax simplification laws that had bipartisan support.
22/37
@mini_optimus
Do you think companies should pay even more tax than they currently do, so employees receive even less of what the employer pays, because the government is better at determining where taxpayers' money should go?
Imagine France: if the company pays $100,000, the employee will receive only $55,000 and the government take $45,000 of the employee's.
23/37
@BuddyWells1
The cause of the rise in money supply / debt in the US is the policy choice not to reduce extreme inequality.
Countries which fail to adequately distribute existing money supply broadly enough, suffer from insufficient aggregate demand to support full employment.
If their govt and central bank are mandated for full employment (as is the case in the US), then the response to inadequate demand must either be to consistently distribute existing money supply more broadly (reduce income inequality) or monetary and fiscal stimulus (adding to money supply / debt).
24/37
@Vinniegee34
You do understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? You also understand that in 1975 the top 1% of income earners paid about 17.5% of all income tax compared to 42% today? Those are rhetorical. I know you have no idea of what you're talking about.
25/37
@JBLuvsCeltic
You can't expect anyone working for Sanders to understand the impact of tax rates.
Per the Census Bureau Report H-17, 26.1% of households have income in excess of $150k vs 6.2% in 1975. This is using constant 2024 dollars.
At the other end of the table, the high marginal rates of the time appears to have contributed to more households being in the lower income brackets than today.
Trickle-down for the win!
Tables at Historical Income Tables: Households
26/37
@johnsonecon
27/37
@hoffman1953
But when the top tier was paying 70% they actually paid a less percentage of the countries total debt then when they were taxed at 37%. So your analysis has some holes in it.
28/37
@JohnRileyPoway
Who deserves that cash?
29/37
@BStarr96522
That is because, since 1975, we had the internet boom, which vastly expanded wealth for those who were in on the ground floor and made knowledge workers more valuable than others.
We also offshored manufacturing, reducing demand for industrial blue collar workers, and imported laborers who would work for peanuts, driving down their wages.
It was those circumstances and measures, not tax rates, which expanded inequality. Trump is trying to right those wrongs. It’s working.
30/37
@AEasteppe
No one at the top paid 70%
31/37
@Jim_Kozlinski
The bottom 40% of households get 70% of their income from the government, so remind me how the money was redistributed from the poor?
32/37
@yewie115
Trickle up inflation is very real.
Try raising minimum wage to $100 if you want to see $200 burritos.
33/37
@Charles91896846
34/37
@Davo0820
/grok please explain to WARREN how the 90% of wealth has been distributed was calculated and why it’s not a true fact?
35/37
@sharitaylor2020
So it was Nixon not Reagan?
36/37
@MadCowReturns
they shifted the taxes to the middle and lower class the government is stealing peoples money
37/37
@IanPitchford
The 79 trillion dollar figure is from RAND, but it is a cumulative counterfactual earnings gap, not measured “wealth redistributed,” and RAND does not say tax cuts alone caused it. The top statutory rate did fall from about 70 percent to 37 percent, and inequality rose. The best cross-country evidence finds large tax cuts for the rich increase top shares without clear growth pay-offs. The tweet’s spirit is directionally right about trickle-down underperforming, but its wording overstates what RAND measured and blurs causation.
To post tweets in this format, more info here: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/tips-and-tricks-for-posting-the-coli-megathread.984734/post-52211196
The biggest trick the United States ever used
Richard Glidewell
Yall done tore all the bottom of ya shoes w/me!!!
I still can't understand how people are this stupid. Them people never pay the full tax, or the tax at all because they use and create every loophole possible to make their networks appear substantially less than what it actually is.......I can't fathom being a grown adult and not being able to understand what is clearly there to see and be known
africngiant
All Star
there’s marginal differences in equity along the bottom 99% while the top class rules over everyone elses livelihood with their influence. capitalism just gives white people the hope and thinking that they’re doing better than the next man and gives them the reign to discriminate against others from those grounds. once you remove that financial/class basis these insecure fukks have nothing else to stand on.
capitalism primarily benefits their own at the top among the bloodbath, that’s why they love it. as soon as black economics got propped they bombed all the assets
capitalism primarily benefits their own at the top among the bloodbath, that’s why they love it. as soon as black economics got propped they bombed all the assets