> The 1950's are before "a couple of decades"
> which was the time period I was noting.
> It's true the corporate tax share was
> much higher then. In my view too much
> is made of this.
In my view, too little is made of it.
Guess we're looking at different vistas.
The vista I'm looking at is the constant corporate/conservative/mainstream media whining about the burdensome state.
Putting things into historical perspective, this shows that a much higher federal tax burden was compatible with a period of much more robust economic growth and much broader sharing of wealth.
Your point, Max, seems to be directed toward leftists and progressives who take a simplistic counter-position.
While I appreciate your efforts in the direction of realism, they may not go far enough. Consider, for example, the relative flatness of social welfare indicators in the US over the past several decades compared to the continued growth in GDP.
It's one thing to disabuse folks on the left of various illusions, but if that's all you do, then you are simply asking for resistence which will then harden attitudes on both sides. Aren't you trying to persuade people here?
p.s. The 80s are over, no matter what Madonna does. I know. The 80s revival band tours have been all over the place here in LA for the last several months.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"