• ClownStatue@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Those “good old days” were propped up by strong unions, excellent public education, high taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and not much regulation beyond not letting another stock market crash happen (See also: rivers literally on fire in Ohio and elsewhere).

    So, 3 Good Things, and 1 really Bad Thing (that makes a lot of money). We’re currently speed running back towards the Bad Thing, we’ve effectively killed unions, public education has long since been gutted, and taxing the ultra-wealthy at all is basically un-American. So…

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      2 days ago

      Growing up, I didn’t even know how powerful unions were.

      My mom worked at a factory and hurt herself when I was a kid. She couldn’t work for months. The union was why I was able to still get food and do hospital visits. She healed up and went right back to work.

      With my first kid, my wife’s job decided her pregnancy was interfering with their need for labor so they fired her. They made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR it wasn’t a pregnancy-related firing over and over again, but that she wasn’t meeting expectations… Because her body hurts from being pregnant. No legal protection either.

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Growing up, I didn’t even know how powerful unions were.

        To give you an idea of their power: The Star Wars Christmas Special was mainly sponsored by the United Garment Workers union.

      • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        What gets me is that the vast majority of Americans actually believe they still have these protections when they don’t. Like, they aren’t even AWARE of the problem.

        Go to any work related discussion and you’ll hear people going on and on about how you can’t get fired for this or that or you’re entitled to one thing or another and 90% if the time they are totally incorrect.

    • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The ultra wealthy weren’t even really taxed that much back then due to loopholes. There’s a reason why many 20th century oligarchs have their names on libraries, public university buildings, and hospitals.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        You’re confusing means for ends.

        What you’re focusing on was that the rich never actually ended up paying those 90% marginal tax rates on their income. But the point of those taxes wasn’t to raise revenue; it was to force changes in behavior. Them donating to all those big hospitals and universities wasn’t a bug, it was a feature. The goal was to force rich people to spend or give away their money instead of hoarding it. Which is ultimately the goal. I ultimately would rather have someone make and spend a billion in a year than make and save a billion in a year. I actually don’t mind if the rich have extravagant homes and yachts, as they have to hire a hell of a lot of people to build and maintain those luxuries.

        High marginal taxes also encouraged companies to give better pay and bonuses to their workers. That was actually the origin of the large end-of-year bonus corporate America traditionally gave out. If your company is sitting on a large pile of extra profits at the end of the year, rather than paying the high marginal tax rate, it made sense to give the extra cash out as a large Christmas bonus to employees.

        What you’re talking about wasn’t a loophole. It was the entire purpose for having those high rates.