Display:
yes, marginal tax rates were 70% or above in the '50's, in the US, France and other countries.  They are now lower than in the '50's.

Maybe this is a great time for France, or other European countries, who have more socialisti views than the US, to set an example for the rest of the world, and return to those marginal rates of 70% or above.  If these higher marginal tax rates spur economic growth, pragmatists such as myself will immediately jump on board, and raise marginal taxes in our countries.  With the French elections upon us, it should be a great time to put that idea before the people; and the following years will clearly show the results of those policies.

I love it when one country can learn from another, and can only encourage you in France to lead the way on this economic experiment.  <seriously, no snark>  it is a great opportunity to prove the philosophy, is it not?

by wchurchill on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 at 04:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If these higher marginal tax rates spur economic growth, pragmatists such as myself will immediately jump on board, and raise marginal taxes in our countries.

wc, you know perfectly well that "spurring economic growth" as sole criterion of choice of policy is one of the things most of us here reject. The point of progressive taxation is not to spur economic growth but to reduce inequality and increase social cohesiveness.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 at 05:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know it is the goal of some onm the site, I would not have guessed most.  My view of course is that the goal should be to do both, and I think that is a very reasonable goal.  In fact, it is a goal that is accomplished every year throughout Europe.  GDP per capita grows, and I believe inequality is improving--I should go back and look more carefully at those measures.

but I think it would be horrible to not dedicate ourselves to improving the lot of mankind worldwide.  and historically that has not happened without growth, and I don't think it will in future.  I view dedicating oneself to no growth, which I know is literally the goal of what a thought were a few (no pun intended) on the site, will condemn many in the world to a perpetual life of poverty and misery.

Can you point to a period in history where economic growth has been zero, and people have come out of poverty around the world?

by wchurchill on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 at 02:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fourteenth and Fifteenth century Europe. After the population was divided by two, and general production going down a lot too, salaries shot up and the poor worker was able to eat meat regularly again. There just wasn't enough workers so salary had to go up, and marginal, low-productivity lands weren't laboured anymore :)

More to the point, in the last two decades the more recent points of growth have been achieved without increase in welfare for most, in the industrialized world. The way our society is set up, growth only goes to the pockets of a small class. If we want to increase the general welfare of the population, growth in our current system has shown to be unproductive.


Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 at 06:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series