China's social credit system

[lauriandres]

I looked up the tax rates of the Soviet Union. For over 46 years, they taxed at a rate of 10%-15%. They raised the tax rates in 1989, when they were on the brink of collapse and trying to be more capitalistic (they collasped in 1991). China didn't bother collecting personal income taxes until the 1980s. So, why do you associate communism with high tax rates?

As much as i remember (i was born in 1975, parents 1954 and 1953), there was no specific taxes or they were not visible on the salary document, when the government company paid you the salary.
My parents salary between 1980-1990 was around 200-600 roubles. Rouble-USD rate (de jure only, not available for ordinary citizens) was 10:1. Real rate after glasnost i.e between 1989-1991 was around 200:1.
1 kg of pork meat in 1988 was about 2 roubles, 0,33l Pepsi (made in Soviet Union, not the american one) was 0,45. Ice cream was between 0,1-0,3 per 100g. Lunch price per month for a school student was about 5 roubles. Utilities (electricity, water) for apartment were low, maybe around 10 roubles per month. VAZ 2105 was 9000 roubles, but you need to have permit to buy it.
I would say that basically the people in Soviet Union were a modern kind of slaves with some positive stuff and also quite a lot of limited stuff. Of course, some where more equal than others and some might say, that life was good - healthcare was free and food was cheap and only bad guys would love to leave the glorious Soviet Union.

Maybe because i lived about 16 years in Soviet Union it is also little bit difficult for me to understand the problems that blacks have faced in US. I.e i have not got (or had found a good article) information whether the life for law abiding blacks in a la New York or Miami was better or not than life for whites in Soviet Union between 1945-1955.

 

[Gameface]

As much as i remember (i was born in 1975, parents 1954 and 1953), there was no specific taxes or they were not visible on the salary document, when the government company paid you the salary.
My parents salary between 1980-1990 was around 200-600 roubles. Rouble-USD rate (de jure only, not available for ordinary citizens) was 10:1. Real rate after glasnost i.e between 1989-1991 was around 200:1.
1 kg of pork meat in 1988 was about 2 roubles, 0,33l Pepsi (made in Soviet Union, not the american one) was 0,45. Ice cream was between 0,1-0,3 per 100g. Lunch price per month for a school student was about 5 roubles. Utilities (electricity, water) for apartment were low, maybe around 10 roubles per month. VAZ 2105 was 9000 roubles, but you need to have permit to buy it.
I would say that basically the people in Soviet Union were a modern kind of slaves with some positive stuff and also quite a lot of limited stuff. Of course, some where more equal than others and some might say, that life was good - healthcare was free and food was cheap and only bad guys would love to leave the glorious Soviet Union.

Maybe because i lived about 16 years in Soviet Union it is also little bit difficult for me to understand the problems that blacks have faced in US. I.e i have not got (or had found a good article) information whether the life for law abiding blacks in a la New York or Miami was better or not than life for whites in Soviet Union between 1945-1955.

I appreciate your post.

But it makes no sense to compare the quality of life of a person in the Soviet Union and a black person in the U.S.. Are you essentially saying "Shut up black Americans, you have it better than you deserve because White people in the Soviet Union had it worse."

The question is weather or not black people in the U.S. had it as good as white people in the U.S., because we are not unequal based on any fundamental characteristic, only because of the residual racism present in our society.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe because i lived about 16 years in Soviet Union it is also little bit difficult for me to understand the problems that blacks have faced in US. I.e i have not got (or had found a good article) information whether the life for law abiding blacks in a la New York or Miami was better or not than life for whites in Soviet Union between 1945-1955.

I appreciate you input of life under communism. I agree with Gameface that the denial of opportunities to minorities in the US has little to do with life under Soviet rule.

 

[lauriandres]

I appreciate your post.

But it makes no sense to compare the quality of life of a person in the Soviet Union and a black person in the U.S.. Are you essentially saying "Shut up black Americans, you have it better than you deserve because White people in the Soviet Union had it worse."

The question is weather or not black people in the U.S. had it as good as white people in the U.S., because we are not unequal based on any fundamental characteristic, only because of the residual racism present in our society.

Gameface and Onebrow,

My only evidence and comparison is that black people in US complain, that life was/is bad in US during that time period. Most of the whites in Estonia during the Soviet occupation (specially under the Stalin regime) also have said, that life was kind of bad. So which one was worse?

Indeed, i do not want to go into that "hey do not complain, our life is also hard" but more like "did it actually was as bad as in Soviet Union". Maybe the better question is: was life more bad for blacks during that period than life for those in Soviet Union who dared to celebrate Christmas (not Ded Moroz - that was allowed ) or publicly show that they have Estonian national flag at home (that was kind of death sentence)? For example, how common were the situations in southern states like it is in the beginning of Alan Parkers film "Mississipi Burning" ? Once per week?

If something similar like Chernobyl catastrophe had occured in USA during around 1950-1970 - would the law and oppression of blacks supported that most of the dangerous clean up would have been done by blacks using the force of the government under the guise of some forced military drill?

 

[Harambe]

It goes by the top percentage of income earners, not by dollar amount. Additionally, there would be a higher number of households contained in 2010. The top tax rates in 1950 was $200,000 with only about 10,000 families getting there. The measured difference is about 6%, which is a difference, but it is not the ridiculous "We taxed at 90%" talking point.

There were far fewer people in the numerator in the 1950's "Ultra Rich" status, and far fewer dollars(even compared with inflation) in that level.

I bet there's someone that can explain it better

By today’s standards, there were many fewer rich households in the 1950s than there are now—in fact, almost none. The rich people from the 1950s that Greenberg is comparing to the rich of today were what we would now call the upper middle class—thus, not an apples-to-apples comparison. Had there been any 2017-style rich people in those days, they would likely have faced an effective tax rate near that confiscatory statutory rate of 91%.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I looked up the tax rates of the Soviet Union. For over 46 years, they taxed at a rate of 10%-15%. They raised the tax rates in 1989, when they were on the brink of collapse and trying to be more capitalistic (they collasped in 1991). China didn't bother collecting personal income taxes until the 1980s. So, why do you associate communism with high tax rates?

In the USSR Workers may have been taxed 10-15% on a wage that was paid to them by their government owned mine. The mine itself was literally a pure profit center for the government to do with as they pleased. Again and again when communist regimes take over they literally take the entire company from the previous owners. Do you consider that a 10-15% tax?

It's pointless to discuss this farther with you. I'm not going to engage with you on another ridiculous trip down one of your rabbit holes.

 

[One Brow]

Do you consider that a 10-15% tax?

It's not an income tax, definitely. Do you call the seizing of assets a tax?

It's pointless to discuss this farther with you. I'm not going to engage with you on another ridiculous trip down one of your rabbit holes.

This is your rabbit hole. You made the claim there were high tax states that failed. You decided to bring up communism. All I asked for was an example of one of these supposedly failed states. I understand your wanting to break off the discussion because you couldn't support your claims, but I'm not responsible for you making those claims.

 

[One Brow]

My only evidence and comparison is that black people in US complain, that life was/is bad in US during that time period. Most of the whites in Estonia during the Soviet occupation (specially under the Stalin regime) also have said, that life was kind of bad. So which one was worse?

Why does that matter, and how would you judge? In Estonia, the bad was applied to all the residents as a part of the system, and from what you have said, relatively uniformly. In the US, black people could have been included in the rising economic prosperity, but were deliberately excluded. Both are bad, but they are bad in very different ways that are not easily comparable.

Indeed, i do not want to go into that "hey do not complain, our life is also hard" but more like "did it actually was as bad as in Soviet Union". Maybe the better question is: was life more bad for blacks during that period than life for those in Soviet Union who dared to celebrate Christmas (not Ded Moroz - that was allowed ) or publicly show that they have Estonian national flag at home (that was kind of death sentence)? For example, how common were the situations in southern states like it is in the beginning of Alan Parkers film "Mississipi Burning" ? Once per week?

I don't think it's a good idea to get into what I have seen called the "oppression olympics". You can talk about about how bad some things were in Estonia, I can respond with other things, they are not really comparable except in that they are all awful ways to treat humans. Why bother?

If something similar like Chernobyl catastrophe had occured in USA during around 1950-1970 - would the law and oppression of blacks supported that most of the dangerous clean up would have been done by blacks using the force of the government under the guise of some forced military drill?

If you are really interested in black forced labor in the 1900s, there are plenty of resources. The general answer is: quite possibly. Why does it matter?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's not an income tax, definitely. Do you call the seizing of assets a tax?



This is your rabbit hole. You made the claim there were high tax states that failed. You decided to bring up communism. All I asked for was an example of one of these supposedly failed states. I understand your wanting to break off the discussion because you couldn't support your claims, but I'm not responsible for you making those claims.

I would bet that the former owners of assets seized by the government would strongly disagree with your characterization. From their perspectives it would be difficult to imagine a higher tax.

 

[One Brow]

I would bet that the former owners of assets seized by the government would strongly disagree with your characterization. From their perspectives it would be difficult to imagine a higher tax.

I suppose you could call it a wealth tax. Seems a stretch, but OK. At any rate, not an income tax.

Feel free to get back to me when you can justify your claim about high tax rates on the wealthy making a country fail.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I suppose you could call it a wealth tax. Seems a stretch, but OK. At any rate, not an income tax.

Feel free to get back to me when you can justify your claim about high tax rates on the wealthy making a country fail.

tax
/taks/
noun

1. 1.
   a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

If the government seizes your business it absolutely fits the definition of a tax. Whatever loophole you are attempting to use to climb out of this reality simply does not exist.

 

[One Brow]

If the government seizes your business it absolutely fits the definition of a tax. Whatever loophole you are attempting to use to climb out of this reality simply does not exist.

So, still no example of these states that failed through high income taxes.

The definition of "tax" you quoted does not support calling asset seizure a tax, but I have no desire to argue about that.