“but you cannot refute the fact that the well being of the middle class directly correlates with tax rates on the super rich.”
Oh, I wouldn’t try. I just reject the notion that the two are dependent variables. Middle class atrophy in the US has been occurring since the mid 1970’s, when median real hourly wage peaked in the US; we haven’t been at those levels since.
Income inequality has been rising since the late 1960’s, on about the same slope path. It doesn’t seem to care what the marginal rates are, what the effective rates are, who controls the White House, who controls the Congress…..nada.
(Oddly, that bump in the early 90’s, where the slope broke and income inequality jumped, is when Clinton RAISED marginal rates.)
So, a reasonable person concludes that the problem with middle class atrophy is not political, not related to taxation, but related to other trends in the economy, such as globalization and the move from a manufacturing economy to a service economy and now to an information economy.
The golden age of the America middle class from WWII to Reagan and is precisely reflected above.
Sure. After WW2, we were the only ones who could rebuild Europe. Lots of guaranteed business for manufacturing and raw materials. Income inequality started to pick up in the late 1960’s when — — wait for it — — the first mass produced manufacturing automation systems appeared, and were priced for mid-sized manufacturing operations.
IBM 1130 - Wikipedia
IBM implemented five models of the 1131 Central Processing Unit, the primary processing component of the IBM 1130. The…
From there, our large companies started to invest in overseas manufacturing. That really took off in the 1970’s, when (unsurprisingly) real mean hourly wage peaked, at a point we haven’t reached since.
Can you say, share buybacks? Get ’em while they are hot.
Know who benefits from those buybacks, other than the rich?