Re: "Castigo Cay" by Matthew Bracken

On 7/23/2025 6:23 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 7/23/2025 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
...>          And sometimes you have to simply raise taxes on the well off

and well
compensated to balance the budget as Ike did way back there when I was in High School. 90% taxes on the people with over a few millilon a year might do a lot to
bring the deficit down. Confiscatory taxation on the people with over $100 million
in wealth might do a lot  more.  The money belongs to the nation and the nation
should be able to recall it when it is trapped in the holdings of a few people.
>
     bliss

 Why not just take every penny that the millionaires and billionaires in the USA own ?

So, you don't have a serious answer.
The general social contract in America is that if you work hard at a job
you should be compensated with a portion of the wealth you create.
This was true for much of American history, but since the 1970s that
portion has shrunk steadily - more and more of the wealth a worker
creates goes to the employer and owners.
Look at the chart here, which plots American worker productivity along
with median compensation, over time:
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
You can see that up until the early 70s, worker productivity and
pay rose pretty much in lockstep. A rising tide really did lift all
boats.
After that point, while productivity continued to rise, real wages
stagnated: Since 1979, productivity increased 87%, but wages only 32%.
Workers are increasingly left out of enjoying the benefit of their
labor.
Do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think it's a bad thing,
As for taxing the rich, I'll note that during 50s and early 60s,
the period many look back at as the most prosperous, the top
marginal federal tax rate was 90% or higher (its now around 40%)
Clearly, high taxes on the very rich didn't hurt the economy.
So yes, I have a lot of sympathy for 'soak the rich', even as
I profit from the BBB, and am in a pretty high bracket myself.
pt