Smarter men than you and I believed differently decades ago. Higher marginal tax rates in our own history coincided with a broader and stronger middle class, and nation. Perhaps that's mainly coincidence, but it does show that those taxes do not hinder the development of that class.
All that remains for you to do now to close the circle is to achieve political office and press for changes, if only small changes, that protect what you and the people like you have, from the people who do not have. And why wouldn't you? When push comes to shove you and your family come first, right?
The idea is not to take money from the wealthy and distribute it to the poor. No one steeped in the values of American Capitalism would ever contemplate that. The idea is to preserve opportunity for everyone; not to rob peter to pay paul, but to assure that if a person acts responsibly and works hard, the odds will once again favor them. When the tax system is out of kilter, as it is now, the partitioning of capital results in inefficient use of capital. Those at the top use capital inefficiently because they control too much capital. (Return on capital deceases as the amount of capital available increases.) Those nearer the bottom, who could use capital quite efficiently if only they had some, don't have enough capital to employ it in an efficient manner. Increasing the number of brackets, i.e., going back to closer to what we had before the 1980s, and raising the top marginal rate to between ~ 50-60% should allow the rates in the lower two brackets to be reduced some. We no longer need to go up to 90%, rather ridiculous anyway, because there is now so much earned income concentrated at the top end that when we start taxing it by increasing rates above 40% there will be sizable returns. By also introducing brackets on unearned income, something we have needed for a long time, we can encourage capital investment by those in lower income levels and greatly slow the insidious, inefficient accumulation of capital at the very top end. The wealthy will remain wealthy, the poor will still be poor, but the middle class will come roaring back and give this country a big boost. We need to bring the minimum wage up too. Contrary to what many believe, when wages are far below what is merited by productivity, raising wages actually increases employment. The idea is to stop subsidizing low wage businesses quite so much and move in the direction of more capital fueled opportunity. In the end, the goal is to try and get compensation to better reflect productivity. Subsidy of the unemployed, a necessary evil, when wages are too low to begin with, actually expands the ranks of the unemployed. By legislating a living wage we can interrupt this vicious cycle, increase employment, and move in the direction of less welfare, and less tax payer subsidy of low wage employers. As the ranks of the unemployed shrink, wages rise, consumption rises, and ultimately single breadwinner families could become a reality once again.. We have been drifting in the wrong direction for three decades in a failed foray into supply-side economics. It is time to go back to what works.
Nonsense. Free college for all for example would certainly help the middle class. This could be easily paid by a reasonable increase in the rate for the top 0.1 %.
High marginal tax rates (the worst of which affected few, btw) did not hinder the development and advancement of the middle class in the postwar era. That era was marked by extraordinary American industrial dominance and prosperity, an era which has ended. The high taxes were made possible by such growth and not the cause of it. We are now in a secular period of anemic growth. Taxation as a means of redistribution will not produce the changes needed to propel the middle class forward in a manner it did in from 1946-1980. Only a paradigmatic cultural shift will achieve this, and such a change is nowhere in the offing. The redistributionists can't face that they and their charges have grown fat, sloppy, and lazy, and have become accustomed to ongoing plenty and have become filled a sense entitlement. We are not in a post scarcity world. Lastly, smarter men than I did not believe differently decades ago as smarter than I was and is rarer than the unfortunate heir paying full estate taxes.
Growing inequality is caused by deindustrialization and the giant regulatory and legal overhang imposed by Fortune 500 to stem competition. This exports jobs, increases unemployment, drives down wages, restricts competition, and increase consumer prices. This is all engineered by Corporate-controlled Politicians (the same idiots you guys voted for....Obama, Bush, Clinton etc...) To solve that problem, Sanders wants to ignore the problem itself (offshoring/excessive regulation/laws) and rob from the rich and give to the poor. While just, it doesn't address the root issue that causes inequality to begin with. The problem with that, like all Liberal plans, is that Corporate bodies will relocate their operations elsewhere to shield profits. This will chase further capital and jobs out of the country, only worsening the situation. Look to failed Commie bannana republics for examples. Bernie offers half-baked solutions. Only Trump deals with the root of the problem - tariffs against Chindia, gut regulation, taxes and laws that restrict competition. Real simple. Surprised you "elitetraders" don't know 1st grade economics.
Surprised?? The only thing the Lefties know is "want". Not the kind of want where one makes a plan to work/save and earn what he wants... but rather the "take it away from somebody who has earned it and give it to me (but I really don't care where it comes from, only that I get it)".... kind of want.