More Cuts coming to Akron ...

[UAZipster0305]

On 8/25/2025 at 9:35 PM, ZipCat said:

 

I'll be brutally honest. This is really, really, REALLY basic stuff that (judging by your age) you have absolutely no excuse not to understand. How are you an Akron grad and not know this? Marginal Rates aren't a universal rate. They're brackets. So while the Marginal rate might be 91%, ZERO people pay that as a total of their income:

(just an overly simplistic example):
 

1-20,000 = 5%
20,001-40,000 = 10%
40,001-100,000 = 20%
100,001-150,000 = 60%
150,001-200,000 =91%

 

Someone making $200,000 when the marginal rate is 91%, isn't taking home $18,000. They're taking home $126,500. Just because the marginal rate is 91%, doesn't mean it's your effective rate. Only money over that margin is taxed at that amount. And yes, yes it is a fact that the marginal rate was 91% from 1951-1963; and era of unmatched economic prosperity in the USA, where we expanded the middle-class to the largest middle-class in human history. 

 

You have no excuse to be at your age and not understand this. And I'm sorry, you cannot argue that the wealthy in the 1950s were just hiding their money in more creative ways. No, there wasn't as concentration of wealthy in that wealthy class as there is today. It's just a fact. Our country was most prosperous when it had higher marginal taxrates to prevent the concentration of wealthy. It is a fact.

I am all for taxing the plutocrats into oblivion to support a healthier society; however, another reason the 1950s were so prosperous is that most of the rest of the industrial world was destroyed during WWII. 

[UAZipster0305]

On 8/26/2025 at 5:04 PM, 72 Roo said:

 It is so exciting to be talking about marginal rates 2 days before one of the most interesting and competitive football opening games. I'm pumped! Damn the fact that this is a sports forum. Bring on more economics. It is more relevant and exciting. Who cares if we have a legitimate chance to be bowl eligible, providing Goodrich can get the NCAA to rescind its ban. I bet Moorhead is glued to this conversation. I know I am. 

While well intentioned, this comment has aged like milk left out on the counter. Bring on the economics and soccer discussions.

[ZipCat]

8 minutes ago, UAZipster0305 said:

I am all for taxing the plutocrats into oblivion to support a healthier society; however, another reason the 1950s were so prosperous is that most of the rest of the industrial world was destroyed during WWII. 

 

True...but we made sure to better distribute those economic gains. 

[UAZipster0305]

1 minute ago, ZipCat said:

 

True...but we made sure to better distribute those economic gains. 

Agreed 100%. All I am saying is that there was another major factor at play, which is commonly ignored in similar discussions and that is not relevant to the current circumstances.

[GP1]

21 hours ago, UAZipster0305 said:

I am all for taxing the plutocrats into oblivion to support a healthier society;

I'm old enough to remember the Soviet Union and the failures of Communism. 130 million people died in the name of Communism in the 20th Century. I addition, I have been to Cuba and have seen the destruction Communism has brought to that beautiful island. Socialism is great for the Socialists, but creates misery for everyone else. Is the perfect Social Man the Communists tell us will run the world going to create this healthier society? In reality, it gives us monsters like Stalin, Lenin and Mao. 

[UAZipster0305]

5 minutes ago, GP1 said:

I'm old enough to remember the Soviet Union and the failures of Communism. 130 million people died in the name of Communism in the 20th Century. I addition, I have been to Cuba and have seen the destruction Communism has brought to that beautiful island. Socialism is great for the Socialists, but creates misery for everyone else. Is the perfect Social Man the Communists tell us will run the world going to create this healthier society? In reality, it gives us monsters like Stalin, Lenin and Mao. 

And I said nothing about socialism or communism. There is no need to trot out these boogeymen models in defense of plutocrat or oligarch. You will never be one and neither will I. The populace's constant defense of plutocrats and oligarchs astounds me.

[GP1]

12 minutes ago, UAZipster0305 said:

And I said nothing about socialism or communism. There is no need to trot out these boogeymen models in defense of plutocrat or oligarch. You will never be one and neither will I. The populace's constant defense of plutocrats and oligarchs astounds me.

We have Plutocrats. We don't have Oligarchs. Oligarchs arise after Socialism/Communism and privately control what used to be state run businesses. Shame on Bernie Sanders for so often misusing the word.