Rick Steves does it again - a must-read progressive. Awesome.
Well, he posted again on Facebook tonight, and DU should wrap our arms around travel honcho Rick Steves - he stands with us:
Stick to Your Day Job, Comrade Steves
The thought-provoking wealth distribution video I posted a few days ago stirred up more comments than anything else we’ve ever posted. Of the over 700 comments, there were many constructive suggestions, lots of questions, and — as usual — plenty of anti-government sentiment. Thanks for all of your comments.
The most common question: What can we do? There’s the obvious: Avoid needless wars. Cut back on military spending. Open up our economy for investment and growth. Go back to a more progressive tax code, as we had under Reagan and Clinton. And defend the inheritance tax (without which we encourage a future generation of idle-rich kids).
And then there's something nobody seems willing to seriously consider: Why not institute a small but inescapable wealth tax? Imagine if just having a "net worth" here in the USA cost 1 percent of that net worth every year? If you sat on a pile of wealth (say $10 million) for 20 years, it would cost you 20 percent of that wealth ($2 million) to keep it in a country where it's not scary to be rich. (Anywhere else on the planet, someone that rich would spend at least that much just on security.) I'm sorry, but I wouldn't pity a person once worth $10 million now only worth "only" $8 million if it makes our country a stronger and healthier one.
Many asked why, if I care so much, don’t I just give more taxes? That’s kind of silly. We need to respond to this challenge as a society. A few caring, patriotic, wealthy people giving what all wealthy people should give would accomplish nothing. If being wealthy in the USA came with a higher tax obligation (as it did for most of the 20th century), we could — assuming smart use of that money entrusted to the government — create a better society. Remember, not long ago our tax dollars took us to the moon and built the Interstate Highway System.
What can we do? In short, I’d say support a return to a more progressive tax code. Making it more expensive to be rich would not deter hard-driven capitalists (like me) from investing and working hard to get rich — and, assuming they're at all patriotic, it certainly wouldn’t drive them out of the country. I believe anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or dishonest.
For all those who say, "Why don’t you just stick to travel writing?”, “I've been a loyal customer for years, but with this post, you have lost me,” and “Stick to your day job, comrade Steves,” I say life is political. We have to live with the political decisions we make as a society. And so do people struggling in our country, people struggling south of our border, and people who will be struggling generations from now with the mess we leave them. Politics is like stewardship. And I believe in thoughtful stewardship.
If you missed this wonderfully intriguing little video clip, check it out below. Meanwhile, next week, I kick off my spring travels overseas — reporting from Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories.
&feature=youtu.be
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2016, 10:42 AM - Edit history (2)
Most discussion of tax history mentions the top marginal rates of the past (91% in the 50s, 70% in the 60s and 70s, 50% through most of Reagan's presidency, etc.)
I like to highlight a different aspect: leaving aside what the rates were, where did they kick in? We live in times where people argue "are couples who make $250K 'rich'?" "Should we raise taxes on people who make over $250K? Over $500K?"
Where did these sorts of things lie in the past?
Using the inflation adjusted historical tax bracket tables from The Tax Foundation for married couples filing jointly, let's break it down a little and find out the equivalents in 2012 dollars:
1945:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 14
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 9
Top bracket affects income over: $2,551,044
1955:
Total number of brackets: 24
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 16
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 11
Top bracket affects income over: $3,426,776
1965:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 13
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 8
Top bracket affects income over: $1,457,740
1975:
Total number of brackets: 25
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 9
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 5
Top bracket affects income over: $853,509
1985:
Total number of brackets: 15
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $360,650
1995:
Total number of brackets: 5
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $386,423
2005:
Total number of brackets: 6
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 1
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $383,773
2013:
Total number of brackets: 7
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 2
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $440,876
Special Bonus Gipper edition numbers:
1988:
Total number of brackets: 2 (No, not a typo. Two brackets)
# of brackets only affecting income over $250K: 0
# of brackets only affecting income over $500K: 0
Top bracket affects income over: $57,738 
(There was a reason why Poppy Bush had to go back on his 'Read My Lips' line -- this rate was so low it was unsustainable (naturally, they crucified him for it). And every RWNJ wants to go back to this, or lower...)
ALL income tax progressivity for very high incomes was eliminated under Reagan, and has stayed that way ever since.
Someone posted a photo of a truck with a bumper sticker that read:
Freedom isn't Free
Stop Whining &
Pay Your Taxes.
I want one. 
They will live their lives trying to stay honest, work themselves to death, and along the way make their families suffer miserably because they are so tight with their money, and will never be there to go to the soccer games, the class plays and the recitals. What was that song by Cat Stevens, that follows along this line of thinking? "Cat's in the Cradle." Send a Youtube clip of that song to your wanna-bee friends. Hey, they just might think about it. If they are really hard-core-gone wanna-bees, yeah. All you can do is just sit back and watch them self-destruct, because they will start hating you if you keep nagging at them. And I'm not even going to start on what's going to happen to their marriages. Think Annette Benning and Kevin Spacey in the classic "American Beauty."
Sorry for my rant, but I so wish there was a way to reach those kinds of people. 
Now I can hear his voice, not Cat's. Thanks for setting me straight on the artist. 
OK OK I don't hate him, more like I'm so jealous of him. He has one of the best jobs I could think of and on top of that he seems like an awesome dude. That bastard!!!! 
I don't do Facebook! I will probably never see the lands of my ancestors, but Rick takes me there every Saturday afternoon on PBS. It doesn't surprise me that he is a Progressive Democrat. He's been all over the world and sees all the different kinds of economies that exist. Ours is probably not the worst, but I expect it's down the list a bit, all things considered. Thank you for posting his article! 
I will do the itunes then! 
