I say go back to the tax rate that JFK had and the rich didn’t go broke. They were still wealthy. All those tax cuts and tax breaks for billionaires and corporations, only created more wealth for billionaires and the corporations. We don’t need more rich people. The one percenters should pay the fair share. Math is a wonderful thing. The universal language.
I have always found the comment “We can’t afford it.” to be ludicrous. Of course we can and must or our future generations will pay a steep price to simply survive.
Our capitalist culture has created a ‘must have’ society. Getting rid of stuff consumes us. Media celebrates the rich. We have a lot to change in order to learn to contribute to a better society. Paying our share and learning the value of it is a worthwhile and necessary place to start.
Tax the rich! End the social security cap that lets rich people stop paying into social security after a certain amount, stop endless wars and diverting all the US money into war, weapons, and colonizing the world. And fix immigration, the justice system (prisons!) and the medical system and taxes (back to that again!) all of which waste money doing hateful things that enrich the rich and avoid the obvious ways the rest of the people could be supported. Just look at other countries’ better ways of doing things and borrow those ideas. Fix our education systems! Check out how Finland did it.
Wow, I have rarely seen such a thorough evisceration of the Republican agenda. This probably could have been the separate posts, honestly. Well said, though.
I would note that, while far from perfect, the Democrats have only had full control with the 60 senate seats needed to get past the filibuster for 4 months since Carter. Change can’t happen until we get that. 2026 is going to be just as important as this election.
You're right about the Senate. Dems will be lucky to do 50-50, but I do think the polls are not fully reflecting Kamala's strength. Dems should retake the House, but who knows? Americans don't exactly vote in their bests interests.
Long isn't always bad, but the people who could benefit most by considering some of your ideas will never take the time to digest this. Maybe you would think about also posting this in shorter bites? Very valuable.
Strangely, my longer Substack articles do much better than my short ones. Different kind of readers, I guess, than Medium. My most widely read Substack article was even longer than this.
Supply side is the greatest flim flam in history. To answer your question, you could start by cutting all the subsidies to the big corporations like energy.
I’m not a fan of increasing the deficit. But I think it would be prudent to point out that trump’s policies would be 5x greater deficit spending according to Wharton economists.
I cannot figure out how Americans aren’t getting NOW that the economy is not a zero sum game, and that government spending, especially when targeted away from the rich (though they got a huge cut), who hoard it and toward the working class that spends—can be beneficial to economic health.
We just SAW this happen. The US threw trillions of dollars into the economy—willy nilly!—and European countries did not and now they are anemically trudging along, and we are almost back to economic health (in many aspects, we are entirely back to health).
The entire global economy VIRTUALLY COLLAPSED. We had a total economic contraction on a catastrophic scale.
Did we have lasting, massive unemployment? No. Did we have catastrophic business failures No. Did we have runaway inflation? No, we had inflation that peaked and then declined.
Was everyone’s life ruined? No.
NO. Why? Because of the government stimulus, which happened very quickly, and mostly just involved spreading money around.
The US recovered the fastest of every economy in the developed world. The US had lower inflation rates than other countries. The US bounced back like a mofo after what everyone thought was a lasting, scarring, deep, deep disaster.
We SAW that happen with our own eyes. We saw a startling reduction in childhood poverty in fact!
I don’t know what the upper limit of government spending is —I assume it exists, or some spending does not do this kind of magic to lower unemployment, etc.—but clearly seeing this should be an eye-opener about certain dynamics which make the US economy very, VERY dissimilar to a household budget!
I cannot say what is wrong in economic theory that must be corrected but austerity has been proven to be bunk (over and over, in fact). The public has been fed a load of bullshit about the economy over the years. And we witnessed a very vivid demonstration of that.
I think Elizabeth Warren had a wealth tax plan but I don’t have time to look it up right now. Hopefully after Kamala Harris wins, we can get something done, but we need that Senate back, and we probably need 60 seats or 51 senators who have the willingness to change the rules on how legislation like that is passed. It helps to have Manchin and Sinema gone. They blocked rules changes.
There are others who are better than me at looking at that issue. Joyce Vance did a nice article not too long ago that mellowed out my concern some. For example, if the House flips to the Dems, which is very possible, this helps a lot. And of course, Kamala is in Pence's roll as master of ceremonies for certification. Republicans are still trying to do nasty stuff at the local level, especially in Georgia. I'm hoping she wins by such a large margin that it defeats a lot of these other attempts, which focus mostly on things like absentee and contested ballots.
In truth, I smell a landslide. I think she's going to pick up states nobody was expecting her to pick up, and I think that polling is grossly inaccurate. I live in Georgia. I know ONE person who may be voting for Trump, and I have Republican friends.
I think he's retained his hard core MAGAts, and the rest are fleeing the sinking ship.
So, why don’t we propose the Reagan tax rate? When the right complains it’s too high, we just say it’s what Saint Ronnie proposed, which they always claim was the greatest economy ever.
I say go back to the tax rate that JFK had and the rich didn’t go broke. They were still wealthy. All those tax cuts and tax breaks for billionaires and corporations, only created more wealth for billionaires and the corporations. We don’t need more rich people. The one percenters should pay the fair share. Math is a wonderful thing. The universal language.
I have always found the comment “We can’t afford it.” to be ludicrous. Of course we can and must or our future generations will pay a steep price to simply survive.
Our capitalist culture has created a ‘must have’ society. Getting rid of stuff consumes us. Media celebrates the rich. We have a lot to change in order to learn to contribute to a better society. Paying our share and learning the value of it is a worthwhile and necessary place to start.
How about taxing the morbidly rich more equitably for starters??
Tax the rich! End the social security cap that lets rich people stop paying into social security after a certain amount, stop endless wars and diverting all the US money into war, weapons, and colonizing the world. And fix immigration, the justice system (prisons!) and the medical system and taxes (back to that again!) all of which waste money doing hateful things that enrich the rich and avoid the obvious ways the rest of the people could be supported. Just look at other countries’ better ways of doing things and borrow those ideas. Fix our education systems! Check out how Finland did it.
That comment is like a snapshot of my brain at just about any given moment these days. :-)
Wow, I have rarely seen such a thorough evisceration of the Republican agenda. This probably could have been the separate posts, honestly. Well said, though.
I would note that, while far from perfect, the Democrats have only had full control with the 60 senate seats needed to get past the filibuster for 4 months since Carter. Change can’t happen until we get that. 2026 is going to be just as important as this election.
Thanks a lot. Yeah, it was a bit long, lol.
You're right about the Senate. Dems will be lucky to do 50-50, but I do think the polls are not fully reflecting Kamala's strength. Dems should retake the House, but who knows? Americans don't exactly vote in their bests interests.
Long isn't always bad, but the people who could benefit most by considering some of your ideas will never take the time to digest this. Maybe you would think about also posting this in shorter bites? Very valuable.
Strangely, my longer Substack articles do much better than my short ones. Different kind of readers, I guess, than Medium. My most widely read Substack article was even longer than this.
Supply side is the greatest flim flam in history. To answer your question, you could start by cutting all the subsidies to the big corporations like energy.
Thanks. We have $150 Trillion in net household wealth. Net. We have the wealth, and then some.
I *never* hear this: <uswealthclock.com> ( Q2 update in progress . . . )
That number increased $70 Trillion in the past 10 years. Our federal obligations increased $17 Trillion in that time.
$70T v $17T - one is bigger.
$84T is scheduled to be given to heirs in the next 20 years. Our federal obligations are at $35 Trillion.
$84T v $35T - one is bigger.
1776 - ‘ . . . we pledge . . . our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.’
2026 is almost here, 250 years . . . ! Who will we be, what will we celebrate, and who will be celebrating ?
We can fix this, and spread prosperity to almost every US citizen, if we vote D.
Let’s get outta R, and shift it into D ! Forward !
there is much more, yet able to be said succinctly — best luck to US — b.rad
I’m not a fan of increasing the deficit. But I think it would be prudent to point out that trump’s policies would be 5x greater deficit spending according to Wharton economists.
Your Substack is wonderfully entertaining while also being informative. Thank you Charles!
Thank you so much for the kind words. I greatly appreciate your readership!!!
Saving to refer to when the complaining about helping out those who need it begins! Thank you!
Right now they seem too busy making up weird stories, but thanks! good to have arrows in the quiver.
Truth right there!
I cannot figure out how Americans aren’t getting NOW that the economy is not a zero sum game, and that government spending, especially when targeted away from the rich (though they got a huge cut), who hoard it and toward the working class that spends—can be beneficial to economic health.
We just SAW this happen. The US threw trillions of dollars into the economy—willy nilly!—and European countries did not and now they are anemically trudging along, and we are almost back to economic health (in many aspects, we are entirely back to health).
The entire global economy VIRTUALLY COLLAPSED. We had a total economic contraction on a catastrophic scale.
Did we have lasting, massive unemployment? No. Did we have catastrophic business failures No. Did we have runaway inflation? No, we had inflation that peaked and then declined.
Was everyone’s life ruined? No.
NO. Why? Because of the government stimulus, which happened very quickly, and mostly just involved spreading money around.
The US recovered the fastest of every economy in the developed world. The US had lower inflation rates than other countries. The US bounced back like a mofo after what everyone thought was a lasting, scarring, deep, deep disaster.
We SAW that happen with our own eyes. We saw a startling reduction in childhood poverty in fact!
I don’t know what the upper limit of government spending is —I assume it exists, or some spending does not do this kind of magic to lower unemployment, etc.—but clearly seeing this should be an eye-opener about certain dynamics which make the US economy very, VERY dissimilar to a household budget!
I cannot say what is wrong in economic theory that must be corrected but austerity has been proven to be bunk (over and over, in fact). The public has been fed a load of bullshit about the economy over the years. And we witnessed a very vivid demonstration of that.
Simple. End the Trump tax breaks for the wealthy and make them pay their fair share.
Funny how no one ever asks how we’re going to pay for the tax breaks for billionaires, though.
I think Elizabeth Warren had a wealth tax plan but I don’t have time to look it up right now. Hopefully after Kamala Harris wins, we can get something done, but we need that Senate back, and we probably need 60 seats or 51 senators who have the willingness to change the rules on how legislation like that is passed. It helps to have Manchin and Sinema gone. They blocked rules changes.
I am right there with you, but fearful of the electoral college
There are others who are better than me at looking at that issue. Joyce Vance did a nice article not too long ago that mellowed out my concern some. For example, if the House flips to the Dems, which is very possible, this helps a lot. And of course, Kamala is in Pence's roll as master of ceremonies for certification. Republicans are still trying to do nasty stuff at the local level, especially in Georgia. I'm hoping she wins by such a large margin that it defeats a lot of these other attempts, which focus mostly on things like absentee and contested ballots.
In truth, I smell a landslide. I think she's going to pick up states nobody was expecting her to pick up, and I think that polling is grossly inaccurate. I live in Georgia. I know ONE person who may be voting for Trump, and I have Republican friends.
I think he's retained his hard core MAGAts, and the rest are fleeing the sinking ship.
You are doing one hell of a great job writing about this. Thanks. I’m sharing repeatedly.
🇺🇸✊🏼💙🇺🇸✊🏼💙
Thank you!! :-)
So, why don’t we propose the Reagan tax rate? When the right complains it’s too high, we just say it’s what Saint Ronnie proposed, which they always claim was the greatest economy ever.
Even nudging it that high would help, absolutely. Gotta start somewhere.
Hopefully, by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of income taxes!
By taking back the 1$trillion gift Trump gave to the rich. Easy peasy.