Less than 0.1% of the population rules our country.

While most of us have an intuitive understanding of the current wealth gap, few comprehend the scale or its role in our divisive politics. Nor do we take the time to truly learn our nation's history and the manner in which the wealthy repeatedly seek to exploit our government. Since the end of the Civil War and the advent of industrialization, we have experienced a constant cycle driven by ignorance and greed. It centers around the same underlying tensions: global and national crises, a tension between isolationism and interventionism, and public unrest. It also inevitably results in the wealthy relying on the same tactics, from isolationism and anti-immigration sentiments to deregulation and government corruption.

We are in the middle of one such cycle, yet this time it's different. It has placed the presidency back in the hands of one of the members of the 0.1%, whose wealth far outstrips that of any past president. He in turn has granted unprecedented power to the richest man in the world. What happens when men like this are handed control of our nation?

The Lessons of History

The Gilded Age, stretching from approximately 1865 to 1902, represents one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. Though it included a sharp growth in the middle class, it was also characterized by mass poverty, tensions over immigration and race, rising corporate power, an utter lack of worker protections, and political corruption. These issues, among many others, make Trump's frequent praise of the era all the more ironic and utterly inaccurate.

Of all the problems faced by Americans during the Gilded Age, the dramatic wealth gap ranked among the worst. "By 1890, the top 1 percent of the U.S. population owned 51 percent of all wealth. The top 12 percent owned an astounding 86 percent. The lower 44 percent of U.S. population—almost half the country—owned just 1.2 percent." (History: "Are We Living in the Gilded Age 2.0?") This concentration of money in the hands of a tiny portion of the population directly contributed to many of the other issues: "robber barons" like Jay Gould and John D. Rockefeller pursued monopolies, exploited workers, and lobbied or simply bribed government officials to tilt the system in their favor. To be clear, several of them such as Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were also notable philanthropists who helped shape the modern United States. (Ironically, their descendants often serve as the targets of MAGA's ire rather than those who did not make any such contributions.) Yet their extreme wealth and manipulation of the system meant policies that ultimately benefited them the most.

In short, the Gilded Age was anything but the "richest" for the vast majority of Americans.

This changed only due to the advent of the Progressive Era from the 1890s to 1920, a gradual backlash against the ultra wealthy that began with the creation of the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission to bring stability to the economy and prevent corporate exploitation. It culminated in significant reforms, including the right of women to vote, the creation of food safety regulations, the adoption of laws that protected workers and limited work hours, and other efforts that improved quality of life. (History: "How Gilded Age Corruption Led to the Progressive Era") However, those developments soon faced severe setbacks outside of our control.

In 1914 World War I devastated Europe, drawing the United States into the deadliest conflict since the Civil War. As it came to an end, the influenza pandemic of 1918 swept the globe and ultimately killed three times as many people as the war had. The two events generated massive uncertainty and initiated a sharp turn toward isolationism among the public even as the remaining robber barons consolidated their wealth, insulated from the impact felt by other Americans. Throughout the 1920s Warren G. Harding and his successor, Calvin Coolidge, led roll-backs of regulations, appointed business-friendly officials, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and imposed onerous tariffs. 

Collectively, these changes contributed to a resurgence of inequality. The stock market soared, fueled by new industries and deregulation, but only a fraction of Americans—the 1 to 3% who held investments—benefited as a much larger percentage of the population fell into debt. The overcultivation of land to meet wartime demand increased even more as farmers felt the pressure from protectionist tariffs. Religious fundamentalism surged, leading to political efforts to implement Prohibition and "moral" education reform even as numerous government officials committed fraud and accepted bribes. Finally, the economy imploded in 1929 as the market crashed, triggering the Great Depression and setting the country on a long path to recovery. 

Does all of this sound familiar?

Simply put, uncertainty and instability directly correlate to an embrace of authoritarian leadership that promises to fix all of the problems we face and lead the country into a new era of prosperity. (Nature: "The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism") That stability never happens. We instead revert to a system that directly benefits the elite, helping them further grow their wealth and power as average Americans struggle and fall further behind each day. Unfortunately, history does repeat...and we still haven't learned from it.

The Modern Robber Barons

The billionaire class of the 1800s didn't disappear. They maintained much of their wealth, and it passed down through the generations, contracting through the Great Depression and the decades that followed but ultimately weathering it unscathed. Then something happened. Beginning in the late 1970s, we suddenly saw a resurgence of wealth inequality, with all of the same problems of the early 20th century once again emerging in the data.

Why did we have a great flattening in the 1950s to 1970s, and what changed?

The post-World War II period is often cited fondly by MAGA supporters as the time when America was great, though that certainly wasn't always the case for many minorities. However, it did indeed represent the golden period for the growth of the middle class. Fueled by strong protections, social security, robust corporate regulations, antitrust laws, and strict transparency requirements, American workers flourished. In other words, by today's standards, the reasons for that growth are based in "woke" policies. But by the 1970s, rocked by a decade of social unrest and global turmoil, America was once again ready to embrace a strong, charismatic leader who promised a return to the "golden era" by destroying the very system that made it possible. Under Ronald Reagan's Republican, business-friendly administration, the stock market soared once again, corporations posted increasingly high profits, new tariffs were imposed, and tax rates were cut to their lowest since the Great Depression.

In short, it set us on the same path as the Gilded Age. Despite token concessions from some administrations since, the fundamental lack of decisive government action (from both Republican and Democrats) has meant that the wealth gap continues to expand over decades later despite multiple economic and financial crises caused by speculation and lack of oversight. We now face the most significant inequality since the 1920s. To be clear, the issue is not that the nation's wealth as a whole hasn't grown; it's that the middle and lower classes have shouldered the burden of progress while the wealth of the top 1%—and the 0.1% in particular—has skyrocketed. 

No man represents the extreme consolidation of wealth more than Elon Musk. 

Some argue that Musk deserves his vast wealth, that he's a visionary who employs so many and drives innovation. Vision is indeed fundamentally different from work. It requires creativity, foresight, and dedication. It deserves recognition, and, yes, a greater share of the wealth that comes with the success of innovation. Yet the question is one of scale. Bringing ideas to life at the scale required to bring about societal change requires significant coordinated effort. It means releasing control of your vision to a degree and relying on others to bring it life. 

Cornelius Vanderbilt did not lay the railroad ties that span this nation. Workers did. Andrew Carnegie did not pound the steel that shaped our ships. Workers did. John D. Rockefeller did not drill the oil shafts that fueled our cars. Workers did. Nor did Elon Musk create PayPal, Tesla, or Twitter. Workers did. In fact, in each of those cases he didn't even supply the vision. Musk bought each of those companies from their creators, yet he is now worth over $350 billion and may become the world's first trillionaire in a matter of years. Again, it raises the question of scale.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy. But being a millionaire during the Gilded Age when the average American earned $400 per year signifies serious issues with the balance between vision and work. Being a billionaire now when the average American earns a median of less than $50,000 signifies serious issues with the balance between vision and work. If you don't quite comprehend just how massive the gulf truly is between those figures, try thinking about it in the same way that many of us do: hourly earnings.

How long would you have to work to earn what Elon Musk makes in one hour?

Elon Musk's wealth grows at $4 million per hour. As a "normal" worker who earns $100 an hour for just 12 hours a day, you would still need to work 9 years to make that same amount. Again: that's 9 years of working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for $100 an hour. Yet the median American income (a better determiner than the average) is $19.24 per hour (Statista) with a standard 8-hour day. In other words, most of us would have to work 71 years, our entire life, to make the equivalent of what Musk makes in a single day, and that's not accounting for all of our taxes and expenses.

It gets worse. Musk's average doesn't represent how he builds his wealth. It occurs in leaps due to acquisitions and market changes. For example, in 2024 Musk added $30 billion to his wealth in a single day. (Fortune: "Elon Musk adds $30 billion to his net worth in a single day") To earn that much, you would have to earn $100 an hour, working non-stop 24 hours a day, for 32,247 YEARS, more than 6 times longer than the entirety of recorded human history.

Go ahead. Do the math. If you try to argue that he "does the hard work" to achieve that, by all means explain how someone who does back-breaking labor that contributes to society in a multitude of ways is worth $10 or $15 an hour compared to $4 million an hour: a difference of 2,666,600%. Does Musk work 2.6 million percent harder than everyone else? The answer is no, because any argument about "hard work" utterly disregards the facts around how wealth is built in the modern era. The vast majority of Musk's fortune is not cash or any sort of equivalent, earned by daily labor. Like all billionaires, it's concentrated in stocks and, often in turn, in intangible assets on the company's balance sheet.

In fact, this strikes at the core of the issue: a system built to preserve wealth rather than income.

How the System Is Rigged

Simply put, I don't want you to take my word on all of this. Rather, take it from Musk's own AI, Grok. This is a full-length exchange that highlights exactly how the system is built to benefit the extreme wealthy at the expense of average Americans, and how that disparity has been fueled since the Gilded Age. The full thread can be accessed here as well.

Grok, I'm confused by the tax system in the United States. What does it mean when someone says the United States has a progressive tax system? Explain that for me and create an example using a table.

Please keep all responses very brief unless otherwise directed.

A progressive tax system means that as your income increases, you pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. The U.S. uses this system to distribute the tax burden more heavily on higher earners. Here’s a simple example:

But why isn't anyone paying the exact tax rate shown for each range? Also, how do deductions and credits reduce the amount of taxes paid?

In a progressive system, the tax rates apply only to the income within each range, not the entire amount. That’s why the "effective rate" (total tax divided by total income) is lower than the highest bracket rate—only part of your income is taxed at the top rate.

Deductions reduce your taxable income (what’s taxed). Example: If you earn $50,000 and have a $5,000 deduction, only $45,000 is taxed, lowering your bill.

Credits directly subtract from your tax owed. Example: If you owe $10,000 and get a $2,000 credit, you pay $8,000.

So, for $50,000 with a $5,000 deduction and $2,000 credit:

• Taxable income: $45,000

• Tax before credit: $9,000 (10% on $10,000 + 20% on $30,000 + 30% on $5,000)

• After $2,000 credit: $7,000 paid

Yes, that makes sense. Let's put this into practice. Create a table that shows the following tax information from the most recent IRS and government data:

1. All taxed households broken into the same groups the government often uses: 0-50, 50-90, 90-99, and 99-99.9. Also include the top 0.1%. (Base this on total household income, not individual income.)

2. The estimated number of households represented in each group.

3. The median annual income reported for each group.

4. The effective income tax rate they pay.

List the sources at the end.

Below is a table based on the most recent available IRS and government data, primarily from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and IRS Statistics of Income (SOI) for 2021, adjusted to reflect household income distributions and tax rates. Note that exact breakdowns like "90-99" or "99-99.9" are often approximated from percentile data, and the top 0.1% is derived from high-income segments. The data is synthesized to align with your request for household-level figures.

I'm a little confused, Grok. Isn't 37% the top tax rate? Why isn't anyone paying that? Please remind me again.

You’re right to notice the 37% top marginal rate—it’s the highest bracket in the U.S. federal income tax system (as of 2025, unchanged from recent years). But no one pays 37% on their entire income because of how progressive taxation works, plus deductions and credits. Here’s why:

• Marginal Rates: The 37% rate only applies to income above a certain threshold (e.g., $609,350 for single filers in 2023, adjusted annually). Lower income portions are taxed at lower rates (10%, 12%, 22%, etc.). So, even the richest pay a blend of rates.

• Effective Rate: This is the average rate paid (total tax divided by total income). For the top 0.1% in the table, their effective rate is ~25.9% because only part of their income hits 37%, and the rest is taxed less.

• Deductions/Credits: High earners use deductions (e.g., mortgage interest, charitable giving) and credits to lower taxable income or tax owed, reducing their effective rate below 37%.

Example: Someone earning $5M might pay 10% on the first $11,000, 12% on the next chunk, up to 37% on income over $609,350. After deductions, their total tax might be $1.3M, an effective rate of 26%, not 37%.

Okay...but speaking of the top earners, you said the median annual income for the top 1% is $1,000,000 and for 0.1% just $5,000,000. There are many people in this country who have hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars! How could their income be so low?

Great question! The confusion comes from the difference between income and wealth, and how "median annual income" is calculated.

• Median Income: The figures ($1M for 99-99.9%, $5M for top 0.1%) are medians—the midpoint of reported taxable income for those groups. Half earn more, half less. Many ultra-wealthy (think billionaires) don’t have huge annual taxable incomes because their wealth isn’t from a salary or wages.

• Wealth vs. Income: Billionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos often have vast wealth (stocks, real estate) but low taxable income. They don’t “earn” billions yearly—they hold assets that grow in value. For example, Musk’s Tesla stock might gain $10B in value, but that’s not taxed as income until sold (and even then, it’s capital gains, taxed at a lower rate, max 20%).

• Tax Strategies: The ultra-rich use loans against assets (not taxed), trusts, or defer selling stocks to minimize taxable income. Their reported income might be $5M or less in a year, despite billions in wealth.

So, the median income for the top 0.1% reflects typical taxable earnings (like dividends, interest, or small stock sales), not their total wealth or asset growth. The super-rich often “live” on borrowed money or unrealized gains, keeping taxable income surprisingly low.

This is getting interesting! In that case let's add another column to the table that you already provided. Show the same information again. However, this time add the amount of taxes paid as a percentage of the overall estimated wealth for each group.

Here’s the updated table with your requested column: taxes paid as a percentage of overall estimated wealth for each income group. Calculating this requires estimating wealth per group, which isn’t directly in IRS data but can be approximated using Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and other sources, paired with the tax data from the CBO and IRS. Wealth is highly concentrated at the top, so these figures reflect that reality. Data is based on 2021 (latest comprehensive year), adjusted slightly for consistency with prior estimates.

Do you mean millionaires and billionaires pay LESS than many other people as a percentage of their overall wealth? But they're rich! I guess that's okay. After all, I'm sure they eventually have to pay taxes on all that wealth, don't they? Then it will benefit everyone.

Yes, millionaires and billionaires often pay less as a percentage of their wealth—because wealth isn’t taxed annually, only income is. The table shows the top 0.1% paying 3.9% of their wealth in income taxes, lower than the 6.1% for the 99-99.9% group, despite being far richer. Their wealth grows through assets (stocks, real estate) that aren’t taxed until sold, and even then, it’s at capital gains rates (max 20%), not the higher income tax rates (up to 37%).Do they eventually pay taxes on all that wealth? Not necessarily:

• Unrealized Gains: If they don’t sell assets, no tax is owed. A billionaire’s $10B in stock can grow to $20B tax-free until sold.

• Loans: They borrow against wealth (not taxed) to spend, avoiding sales.

• Estate Tax: At death, wealth passes to heirs. The 2025 estate tax exemption is ~$13.6M per person; above that, it’s taxed at 40%. But with trusts and loopholes, much can avoid taxation entirely.

• Step-Up Basis: Heirs inherit assets at current value, erasing prior gains. A $1M stock bought decades ago, now worth $100M, gets taxed as if bought at $100M—zero tax on the $99M gain.

So, a lot of that wealth never gets taxed, meaning it doesn’t automatically “benefit everyone” through redistribution. It stays concentrated unless sold or policy changes (e.g., a wealth tax, which isn’t current law).

Hold on! Are you saying the 1% pay just a little more than me as a percent in taxes for their income, but they don't EVER have to pay taxes on most of their wealth?

Pretty much, yeah. The top 1% (90-99% and up) pay higher effective income tax rates—17.8% to 25.9% in the table—compared to, say, the 3.5% for the bottom 50%. So, on their yearly income, they do pay more as a percentage than you might, depending on your bracket.

But their wealth? Most of it—stocks, property, etc.—isn’t taxed unless they sell it. Even then, it’s often at the lower capital gains rate (20% max) instead of income tax rates (up to 37%). And if they hold it until death, their heirs can inherit it with a “step-up basis,” wiping out taxes on decades of growth. Plus, they can borrow against it tax-free or use trusts to dodge estate taxes. So, yeah, a huge chunk of their wealth can never get taxed under current rules.

I'm not sure I believe that, Grok! If it's true, they wouldn't have money to buy their mansions and jets and all of those other fancy things. Does it have something to do with what you said about "borrowing against it"?

Fair skepticism! They absolutely have money for mansions and jets—it’s just not from taxable income most of the time. That’s where “borrowing against it” comes in.Here’s how it works:

• Wealth as Collateral: Say a billionaire has $1B in Tesla stock. They don’t sell it (avoiding capital gains tax). Instead, they go to a bank and say, “Lend me $50M, secured by my stock.”

• Tax-Free Cash: The loan isn’t income, so it’s not taxed. They use that $50M to buy a mansion, jet, whatever—no tax hit.

• Low Interest: Interest rates on these loans are often 2-3% (cheap compared to 20% tax on gains). They might pay it back with more borrowing or small stock sales later.

• No Sale, No Tax: The stock keeps growing untaxed. If it doubles to $2B, they borrow more. If they die, heirs inherit, and the “step-up basis” erases the gains tax.

So, they’re not “cash poor”—they’re just using wealth to unlock cash without triggering taxes. It’s a legal loophole that keeps their taxable income low while funding lavish lifestyles. Crazy, right?

This is all starting to come together. Are you telling me that the top 1% and especially the top 0.1% NEVER have to pay taxes on most of their wealth up to the time they die? What happens to it after that?

You’re getting it! Yes, the top 1%—especially the top 0.1%—can avoid taxes on most of their wealth during their lifetime. Their assets (stocks, real estate, etc.) grow untaxed unless sold, and they use tricks like borrowing to access cash without selling. So, a billionaire’s $10B fortune might never face income tax while they’re alive.After they die:

• Estate Tax: Wealth above a certain amount—$13.61M per person in 2025 (adjusted yearly)—is taxed at 40%. A $1B estate might owe ~$400M. But:

  • Exemption: The first $13.61M (or $27.22M for a couple) is tax-free.

  • Loopholes: Trusts, gifting assets early, or “grantor retained annuity trusts” (GRATs) can shrink the taxable estate. Some pay little or nothing.

• Step-Up Basis: Unsold assets (e.g., stock) pass to heirs at current market value. A $1M stock now worth $100M? Heirs inherit it as $100M—no tax on the $99M gain. They sell later, paying tax only on future growth.

So, even after death, much of the wealth can dodge taxes. The estate tax catches some, but the ultra-rich often minimize it, passing billions onward with little hit. Wild, huh?

When you say a "little hit," just how much are we talking about? For example, if someone has $50 billion at the time they die, what percentage of that would have been taxed if they used all these loopholes?

Let’s crunch it for a $50 billion estate in 2025, assuming they’ve maxed out loopholes to minimize the estate tax hit. Here’s a rough breakdown:

Baseline Estate Tax (No Loopholes):

• Exemption: $13.61M per person (or $27.22M for a couple) is tax-free.

• Taxable estate: $50B - $27.22M = ~$49.973B.

• Tax Rate: 40% on amounts over $1M (with a small credit adjustment, but negligible here).

• Tax owed: 40% of $49.973B ≈ $19.99B.

• Percentage: $19.99B / $50B = ~39.98% taxed.

With Loopholes:

The ultra-rich don’t pay that full rate. Here’s how they slash it:

• Lifetime Gifting: They gift $18,000 per recipient annually (2025 gift tax exclusion) to many people—family, friends, trusts—tax-free. Over decades, this moves billions out of the estate.

• Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs): They transfer assets (e.g., $20B in stock) to a GRAT, get payments back, and the rest passes to heirs tax-free if structured right. Success depends on asset growth and IRS interest rates, but it’s common to shift $10B+ this way.

• Charitable Deductions: Donate $5B to a private foundation (tax-free), retaining control over it.

• Valuation Discounts: Undervalue assets (e.g., family businesses) by 30-40% via legal maneuvers, shrinking the taxable estate.

• Spousal Exemption: Unlimited transfers to a U.S. citizen spouse; if they’re still alive, $50B could go tax-free, taxed only at the second death.

Realistic Scenario:

A savvy $50B estate might:

• Gift $10B over decades.

• GRAT away $15B.

• Donate $5B to charity.

• Leave $20B taxable, minus discounts (say, 30% off = $14B taxable).

• Tax on $14B: $14B - $27.22M exemption = ~$13.973B × 40% = $5.59B.

Percentage Taxed: $5.59B / $50B = ~11.2%.

Bottom Line:

With top-tier planning, they might pay 10-15% of their wealth in estate tax—sometimes less if they’re ruthless with loopholes. Compare that to the naive 40%, and it’s a “little hit” indeed. The rest flows to heirs or foundations, often untaxed forever. Nuts, right?

I can't believe they keep that much of it! Where did all of these loopholes come from? It has to be recent, doesn't it?

It’s wild how much they keep, isn’t it? These loopholes aren’t exactly new—most have roots going back decades, shaped by tax law evolution and lobbying. Here’s where they come from:

• Estate Tax Basics (1916): The U.S. introduced the estate tax during World War I to fund the war and curb wealth concentration. Exemptions and rates have fluctuated since.

• Gifting Exclusion (1932): The annual gift tax exclusion ($18,000 in 2025, adjusted yearly) started small but grew with inflation. It’s been a steady way to move wealth tax-free.

• Spousal Exemption (1948): Post-WWII, the unlimited marital deduction was added to protect surviving spouses, but it’s now a tool for deferring tax across generations.

• GRATs (1990): Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts got a boost from a 1990 IRS ruling (after the 1986 Tax Reform Act). Wealthy families seized on it to shift appreciating assets tax-free, especially after a 2000 court case (Walton v. IRS) made it bulletproof.

• Step-Up Basis (1921): Introduced with capital gains tax, this lets heirs reset asset values at death. It’s been tweaked but never killed, surviving reform attempts.

• Valuation Discounts (1970s-80s): Courts and IRS rulings allowed discounts for “lack of marketability” in family businesses or assets, exploding as a strategy in the late 20th century.

• Lobbying: Since the 1980s, tax cuts (e.g., Reagan’s 1981 Act, Bush’s 2001 cuts, Trump’s 2017 TCJA) raised exemptions and kept rates from hitting the rich harder. Wealthy donors and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) push for these breaks.

Not recent—many date back 50-100 years, refined over time. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the estate tax exemption (from $5.49M to $11.18M, now $13.61M), but the core loopholes predate it. They’ve just gotten slicker with better lawyers and financial tools. Crazy how it’s built up, huh?

1916! That's pretty far in the past! Tell me more about the history behind this. I've heard Donald Trump mention the Gilded Age and how that time was so great for Americans. He said "we were at our richest." Is that true, and how does it fit in with all of this?

Yeah, 1916 kicks off a long story! Let’s dive into the history and tie it to Trump’s Gilded Age claim.

History Behind the Estate Tax & Loopholes:

• Pre-1916: The U.S. had no permanent federal income or estate tax. Wealth boomed during the Gilded Age (1870s-1900), a time of industrialization, railroads, and tycoons like Rockefeller and Carnegie. No tax meant they kept nearly everything—mansions, trusts, dynasties.

• Gilded Age Reality: Trump’s right that America was “rich”—if you were an elite. National wealth soared, but it was lopsided. By 1890, the top 1% held ~51% of wealth (per historian Emmanuel Saez). Workers faced 12-hour days, child labor, and slums. Great for the rich, brutal for most.

• 1913-1916: Progressive Era backlash hit. The 16th Amendment (1913) legalized income tax to curb inequality. World War I cash needs led to the 1916 estate tax—10% on estates over $50,000 (~$1.4M today). Goal: break up dynasties and fund government.

• Loopholes Emerge: Early on, exemptions and deductions (e.g., spousal transfers) were baked in. Over decades, the rich lobbied for more—like GRATs and step-up basis—to protect wealth, undoing some of that 1916 intent.

Trump’s Gilded Age Claim:

• “We Were at Our Richest”: Kinda true, kinda not. Total U.S. wealth grew insanely fast—GDP jumped from $36B in 1870 to $84B in 1900 (in 1900 dollars). But it was concentrated. The richest 0.1% owned ~25% of wealth by 1900 (Saez & Zucman). Average folks? Wages stagnated; poverty was rampant.

• Why He Likes It: Trump’s nostalgia fits his tax stance—low/no taxes on wealth let tycoons thrive. His 2017 tax law echoes that: it doubled the estate tax exemption, shielding more millionaire/billionaire estates. He’s said the Gilded Age’s “energy” and “freedom” made America great—code for unchecked wealth-building.

How It Fits:

The Gilded Age had no estate/income taxes, so the 1% kept everything—similar to today’s loopholes letting the top 0.1% dodge taxes on wealth growth. Back then, no tax = dynasties. Now, loopholes = dynasties with extra steps. Trump’s policies lean into that vibe, favoring wealth preservation over redistribution. The 1916 tax tried to fix Gilded Age inequality; today’s system bends back toward it. Wild parallel, right?

That doesn't make very much sense to me. Trump claimed that tariffs from the Gilded Age made us all rich, but you just said it was a "brutal" time for most. How do the tariffs fit into this?

Good catch—Trump’s tariff claim and the Gilded Age reality don’t fully align. Let’s unpack it.

Tariffs in the Gilded Age:

• How They Worked: From the 1870s to 1900, tariffs (taxes on imported goods) were the U.S. government’s main revenue source—up to 50-60% of federal funds. Rates were high (20-40% on stuff like steel, textiles), pushed by Republicans to protect American industries.

• Trump’s Claim: He says tariffs made America “rich” by boosting factories, jobs, and wealth. There’s some truth—manufacturing grew fast. Steel production jumped from 1.25M tons in 1880 to 10M by 1900. Companies like Carnegie Steel thrived, and GDP doubled.

• Who Got Rich: The tariffs helped industrialists—Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan—pile up fortunes. The top 1%’s wealth share hit ~51% by 1890. They built railroads, factories, and mansions off protected profits.

Why It Was “Brutal” for Most:

• Workers Screwed: Tariffs raised prices on goods (clothes, tools) for everyone, hitting the poor hardest. Wages didn’t keep up—factory workers earned $400-$500 a year ($12K today), while living costs soared. Child labor, 12-hour shifts, and no safety nets were the norm.

• Inequality Exploded: The “riches” stayed with the elite. By 1900, 75% of wealth was held by the top 10% (Saez & Zucman). Farmers got crushed by high equipment costs and railroad monopolies, not tariff windfalls.

• No Redistribution: Without income or estate taxes (pre-1913/1916), tariff cash funded government basics (military, infrastructure), not schools or welfare. The average person saw little trickle-down.

Tariffs vs. Taxes Today:

Trump’s Gilded Age nostalgia skips this gap. Tariffs built industrial wealth, sure, but for a tiny sliver of society—same as today’s tax loopholes letting the top 0.1% keep billions. Back then, tariffs didn’t “make us all rich”; they padded tycoon pockets while most scraped by. He’s pitching a rosy version where elite gains mean national success, but history says it was lopsided as hell. Makes you think, huh?

I didn't expect that at all! But wasn't there a time in America when average Americans had a shot? Tell me about a period when the lower class and the middle class were able to grow their modest wealth.

You’re right to wonder—there was a time when average Americans had a real shot at building wealth. The best example is the post-World War II era, roughly 1945 to the early 1970s, often called the “Golden Age of Capitalism” or the “Great Compression.” Here’s why it worked for the lower and middle classes:

What Made It Happen:

• Strong Unions: By 1950, ~35% of workers were unionized (peak power). They fought for higher wages, benefits, and job security. Average factory workers saw real wages double from 1947 to 1973.

• Progressive Taxes: Top income tax rates hit 91% in the 1950s (effective rate ~50% for the rich), and estate taxes clawed back wealth (40-77% on big estates). This funded public goods without crushing the middle.

• GI Bill (1944): Millions of veterans got free college, low-cost home loans, and job training. Homeownership jumped from 44% in 1940 to 62% by 1960—modest wealth for regular folks.

• Economic Boom: Post-war growth was nuts—GDP grew 4-5% annually. Jobs were plentiful; manufacturing employed ~30% of workers. A single breadwinner could buy a house, car, and save.

• Government Investment: Highways, schools, and Social Security (expanded 1950s) leveled the playing field. Public college was dirt cheap—e.g., UC system was free for Californians.

Results for Lower/Middle Class:

• Wage Growth: From 1947-1973, median family income rose 2.5% yearly (adjusted for inflation), hitting ~$12,000 by 1970 ($90K today). The bottom 50%’s income share grew.

• Wealth Building: Savings accounts and home equity became common. By 1970, the middle class held ~40% of U.S. wealth (vs. ~30% today, per Fed data).

• Less Inequality: The top 1%’s wealth share dropped to ~25% by the 1960s (down from 50% in the Gilded Age), per Saez & Zucman. The gap shrank—hence “Great Compression.”

Why It Faded:

By the 1970s, unions weakened (down to ~10% today), tax rates fell (top rate to 37% now), and globalization/offshoring hit. The rich rebounded—top 1% wealth share’s back to ~35%—while middle/lower growth stalled.That 1945-1970 stretch was a sweet spot: policy and prosperity gave average Joes a ladder up. Not perfect (e.g., racial gaps lingered), but it’s the closest America got to broad wealth-building. Cool contrast to the Gilded Age, right?

Oh, do you mean that the government deregulated a lot in that time? That's what Trump and the Republicans say helps the middle class.

Actually, no—deregulation wasn’t the driver during that 1945-1970 “Golden Age.” Trump and Republicans often say less regulation boosts the middle class, but that period thrived under more government involvement, not less. Here’s the mix-up:

1945-1970: Regulation & Growth

• Heavy Regulation: Industries like banking (Glass-Steagall Act), utilities, and airlines were tightly controlled. This stabilized jobs and wages, not wild profits. Unions were protected by laws like the Wagner Act (1935), keeping labor strong.

• Big Government: High taxes (91% top rate) funded the GI Bill, highways, and schools—direct middle-class boosts. The New Deal’s legacy (Social Security, labor rules) held firm.

• Result: Middle-class wages grew 2.5% yearly, and wealth spread wider. Deregulation wasn’t the hero—targeted rules and spending were.

Deregulation Later (1970s Onward):

• Shift: Starting late 1970s—think Carter’s airline deregulation, Reagan’s tax cuts (top rate to 28%), and Clinton’s Glass-Steagall repeal (1999)—rules loosened. Businesses got freer; unions faded.

• Trump’s Take: He pushes this further—2017 tax cuts, rollback of environmental/labor rules—saying it unleashes growth. It does juice corporate profits and stock prices (top 1% win big), but wages? Middle-class income growth slowed to ~0.5% yearly since 1980 (Fed data).

• Wealth Gap: Post-deregulation, the top 1%’s share jumped from ~25% to ~35% (Saez & Zucman). Middle-class wealth stagnated—homeownership’s back to ~65%, savings are thinner.

Why the Disconnect?

The 1945-1970 era used regulation and taxes to force wealth downward—think guardrails for fairness. Deregulation since then cut those guardrails, letting wealth rush upward. Trump’s right that it “helps” if you mean GDP or markets, but the middle class got more from the earlier, stricter setup. Funny how the story flips, huh?

That can't be right! DEREGULATION is why the wealth gap grew again? If all of those regulations on banking and other industries were protecting us and helping average Americans build good lives, who removed those regulations?

Yeah, it’s counterintuitive—deregulation sounds like freedom, but it often freed the rich more than the rest. The wealth gap grew after those 1945-1970 guardrails came down. Let’s finger the culprits who peeled them back:

Key Deregulation Moments & Who Did It:

• Airlines (1978):Who: President Jimmy Carter (Democrat) signed the Airline Deregulation Act, pushed by Senator Ted Kennedy and economist Alfred Kahn.

• Why: To boost competition, lower fares. It worked—flying got cheaper—but it also killed union jobs and stable wages in that sector.

• Wealth Tie: Profits shifted to execs and shareholders, not workers.

Reagan Revolution (1980s):

• Who: President Ronald Reagan (Republican), with a GOP Congress.

• What: Slashed top tax rates (91% to 28% by 1986), weakened unions (e.g., PATCO strike 1981), and loosened rules on banks and telecoms (e.g., Savings & Loan deregulation).

• Why: “Trickle-down” economics—free markets would lift all boats. GDP grew, but the top 1%’s income share doubled (10% to 20%, per Piketty).

• Wealth Gap: Middle-class wage growth slowed; wealth concentrated upward.

Glass-Steagall Repeal (1999):

• Who: President Bill Clinton (Democrat), with a bipartisan Congress (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, led by GOP Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Leach).

• What: Ended the 1933 law separating commercial and investment banking.

• Why: Banks lobbied hard—wanted to merge and chase bigger profits. It fueled the 2000s financial boom (and bust).

• Wealth Tie: Risky bets enriched Wall Street; average folks got 2008’s crash, not the gains.

Bush Tax Cuts (2001-2003):

• Who: President George W. Bush (Republican), GOP Congress.

• What: Cut top income tax to 35%, capital gains to 15%. Estate tax phased down.

• Why: More “trickle-down”—boost investment. Top 0.1% saw tax savings of ~$85K yearly; middle got ~$1K (CBO).

• Wealth Gap: Top 1% wealth share climbed to ~35% by 2010.

Trump Era (2017 Onward):

• Who: President Donald Trump (Republican), GOP Congress.

• What: 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—top rate to 37%, corporate tax to 21%, estate exemption doubled.

• Why: Same old “growth for all” pitch. Corporations and the rich saved billions; middle-class gains were smaller (~$1K tax cut vs. $193K for top 0.1%, per TPC).

• Wealth Tie: Stock market soared, but 84% of stocks are held by the top 10%.

Who’s to Blame?

Both parties! Democrats (Carter, Clinton) and Republicans (Reagan, Bush, Trump) chipped away at 1940s-1960s rules. Big business and Wall Street lobbied hard—think banks, oil, tech—spending billions since the 1970s (e.g., Business Roundtable formed 1972). They sold deregulation as “efficiency” or “consumer choice,” but it tilted the game. Regulations once forced wealth to spread; without them, it pooled at the top. Wild how it’s bipartisan, right?

But if both parties had a hand in some of that deregulation, who's trying to bring back some of those regulations now to help the middle class grow again?

You’re right—both parties have played roles in deregulation, so who’s pushing to re-regulate for the middle class now? As of April 8, 2025, here’s the lay of the land:

Democrats:

They’re the main ones trying to bring back regulations to boost the middle class, though it’s not a full rewind to the 1945-1970 era. Focus is on:

• Tax Policy: Biden’s pushed to raise the corporate tax rate (from 21% to 28%) and tax unrealized gains for the ultra-rich (a new “billionaire tax”). This aims to fund stuff like the expanded Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in 2021 but lapsed in 2022. Think: more cash for middle-class families.

• Labor Rules: The PRO Act (passed House 2021, stalled in Senate) would strengthen unions—echoing Wagner Act vibes—by banning “right-to-work” laws and easing organizing. Unions built the middle class back then; Dems bet they can again.

• Banking & Wall Street: Elizabeth Warren and progressives want to revive Glass-Steagall (separating commercial and investment banks) to curb risky finance. Biden’s CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) is also cracking down on junk fees—small wins for regular folks.

• Infrastructure: The 2021 Infrastructure Act and Inflation Reduction Act (2022) pour billions into jobs (think construction, clean energy) that don’t need college degrees—middle-class turf. It’s not regulation per se, but it’s government steering wealth downward.

Republicans:

They’re mostly against re-regulation, sticking to the deregulation gospel—Trump’s camp especially. But there’s a twist:

• Populist Wing: Folks like Josh Hawley or J.D. Vance talk up “worker-first” policies. They’ve floated breaking up Big Tech monopolies (antitrust regs) or protecting manufacturing jobs via tariffs—not classic 1950s rules, but nods to middle-class anxiety. Still, it’s more rhetoric than action; no major bills yet.

• Project 2025: This GOP blueprint (from Heritage Foundation types) doubles down on deregulation—cutting labor protections, slashing taxes for the rich. It’s the opposite of middle-class growth via rules; critics say it’d widen the gap further.

Why the Split?

Dems see regulation as a tool to rebuild what worked post-WWII—strong labor, taxed wealth, public investment. Republicans (mainstream ones) argue markets, not rules, lift everyone—deregulation’s their faith, even if it’s flopped for the middle since the 1980s. The populist GOP fringe flirts with re-regulation but lacks traction against the party’s donor class.

Reality Check:

Dems have the edge on this—Biden’s laws and proposals lean into middle-class growth through government muscle. But Congress is gridlocked (Senate’s 50-50ish split as of now), and loopholes from decades past still haunt. Neither side’s fully recreating that Golden Age yet—too much political noise and corporate cash in the way. Wild how history echoes, huh?

Now I'm questioning a lot of things I thought I knew. You said that Donald Trump was one of the presidents who pushed for deregulation, but all of his supporters say that he's a self-made billionaire who's trying to finally change the system. Can you clear this up for me? How did Trump build his wealth?

It’s totally fair to question what you’ve heard—Trump’s image as a “self-made billionaire” who’ll shake up the system is a big part of his pitch, but the reality’s messier. Let’s break down his wealth and his deregulation stance.

How Trump Built His Wealth:

• Starting Point: Not self-made from scratch. Fred Trump, his dad, was a real estate mogul worth ~$200M-$300M (in today’s dollars) by the 1970s. Donald got a hefty leg up:

  • Loans & Gifts: Fred gave Donald ~$1M in the 1970s (worth ~$5M today) to start, plus millions more over decades—loans, bailouts, and a 1990s trust. A 2018 NYT investigation pegged it at $413M (adjusted) total, including tax-dodging schemes like undervaluing properties.

  • Inheritance: When Fred died in 1999, Donald and siblings split ~$200M (today’s value). That’s a chunk of his base wealth.

• Real Estate: Trump parlayed this into Manhattan deals—e.g., the Commodore Hotel (1970s, with tax breaks from NYC). He built a brand around luxury towers, casinos, and golf courses. Some wins (Trump Tower), some flops (Atlantic City casinos bankrupted 6 times, 1991-2009).

• The Apprentice: TV made him a household name—$427M earned from 2004-2018 (per Forbes). Licensing his name (hotels, ties) added more, often without owning the assets.

• Wealth Today: Forbes estimates $6.5B (April 2025), boosted by Truth Social’s parent company (TMTG) going public in 2024. Stock swings make it shaky, but he’s still rich—less than his claimed $10B, though.

“Self-Made” Myth:

He turned millions into billions, sure—but started with a fortune most don’t get. If Fred hadn’t bankrolled him, he’d have struggled. Compare: a $1M loan in 1970, invested in the S&P 500, would be ~$50M today without work. Trump beat that, but not from zero.

Deregulation, Not System Change:

• His Record: Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut corporate taxes (35% to 21%) and doubled the estate tax exemption—moves that help the rich keep wealth, not shake up the system. He rolled back 112 environmental rules (per Harvard) and weakened labor protections (e.g., overtime pay rules). That’s deregulation, favoring businesses over workers.

• Supporters’ View: They see him as an outsider smashing elite rules—tariffs on China, “drain the swamp.” But his tax cuts gave the top 1% ~$193K yearly vs. $1K for the middle (Tax Policy Center). His wealth grew via the same loopholes (low capital gains tax, real estate breaks) he left intact.

• System Fit: He’s not upending the game—he’s winning at it. Borrowing against assets (e.g., $160M in loans on properties, per Forbes) and dodging taxes mirror the top 0.1% playbook we talked about.

Clearing It Up:

Trump’s a billionaire, but not self-made—he rode family wealth, tax breaks, and branding. His deregulation helps the rich (like him) more than the middle class, despite the populist hype. Supporters see a rebel; data shows a guy thriving in the system he claims to fight. Wild disconnect, right?

This really is wild... You said that Trump built up a lot of his wealth starting during the 1970s and 1980s. I remember that a lot of people in that time were pushing for a strong conservative movement and deregulation: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Rupert Murdoch, and more. Is there something that connects all of them, perhaps one person?

You’re onto something—there’s a thread tying Trump’s wealth-building era (1970s-80s) to that conservative, deregulation push. Nixon, Reagan, Murdoch, and others were part of a broader shift, and one figure looms large as a connector: Roy Cohn. He’s not the mastermind of it all, but he’s a key player linking these folks and their ideas.

Roy Cohn: The Glue

• Who He Was: A ruthless lawyer and political fixer, Cohn rose in the 1950s as Senator Joe McCarthy’s attack dog during the Red Scare. By the 1970s-80s, he was a New York power broker—connected, cunning, and all about winning at any cost.

• Trump Link: Cohn was Donald’s mentor and lawyer starting in 1973. When the feds sued Trump for racial discrimination in housing, Cohn counseled him to fight dirty—countersue, never settle. Trump learned Cohn’s “never back down” ethos, shaping his business and political style. Cohn also tied Trump to NYC’s elite and shady dealmakers.

• Nixon Connection: Cohn worked with Nixon in the 1950s (McCarthy era) and stayed tight with his circle. Nixon’s 1968 “law and order” campaign echoed Cohn’s anti-left tactics, and his 1970s deregulation (e.g., easing oil price controls) set a tone Trump later rode.

• Reagan Boost: Cohn didn’t directly advise Reagan, but he moved in the same orbit—New York conservatives and media players pushing Reagan’s 1980 run. Cohn’s clients (like mob figures) overlapped with Reagan-era deregulators who wanted less oversight. Reagan’s tax cuts and union-busting (1981 PATCO strike) were music to Trump’s real estate ears.

• Murdoch Tie: Rupert Murdoch, building his media empire (Fox News later, but NY Post in the 1970s), was a Cohn pal. Cohn introduced Murdoch to Trump in the 1970s, per “The Making of Donald Trump” by David Cay Johnston. Murdoch’s outlets later amplified Reagan’s and Trump’s deregulation gospel.

The Bigger Picture:

• Conservative Movement: The 1970s-80s saw a backlash to the 1960s’ liberal gains—think Vietnam, civil rights, regulation. Cohn bridged McCarthy’s 1950s red-baiting to this new wave. Groups like the Business Roundtable (1972) and Heritage Foundation (1973) pushed deregulation, low taxes, and “free markets”—ideas Nixon flirted with, Reagan ran on, and Murdoch sold.

• Why It Connects: Cohn wasn’t the puppet master, but he networked these players. His “win at all costs” vibe—honed with McCarthy, taught to Trump, echoed by Reagan’s optimism and Murdoch’s media—fueled a culture where wealth trumped rules. Deregulation (banks, taxes, labor) let Trump’s real estate bets and others’ fortunes soar.

One Person?

Cohn’s the closest to a single connector—linking Trump personally, influencing Nixon’s circle, and greasing Murdoch’s rise, all while cheering Reagan’s era. But it’s bigger than one guy—it’s a zeitgeist of conservative power, wealth protection, and rule-slashing that crystallized then. Trump’s wealth grew in that soil, and he’s replanting it now. Wild how it webs together, huh?

Hold on again: you said that Cohn introduced Trump to Rupert Murdoch? Wasn't Murdoch the founder of Fox News? Tell me more about their relationship and how this fits into the narrative of our tax system and wealth.

Yep, Roy Cohn did introduce Donald Trump to Rupert Murdoch in the 1970s—setting off a relationship that’s shaped media, politics, and wealth in wild ways. Let’s dig into it and tie it to the tax system narrative.

Murdoch & Trump: The Meet-Cute

• Cohn’s Role: In the mid-1970s, Cohn, Trump’s lawyer and fixer, brought the young real estate guy into his New York power circle. Murdoch, an Australian media mogul, had just bought the New York Post (1976) and was expanding in the U.S. Cohn, a social spider, linked them up—likely at a Manhattan party or deal-making dinner, per David Cay Johnston’s reporting.

• Early Vibes: Trump was building his brand; Murdoch was building an empire. They clicked—both brash, ambitious, and anti-establishment in their way. Murdoch’s tabloid style (sensational, pro-business) gave Trump early press—think 1980s headlines hyping his deals.

Murdoch & Fox News:

• Founding Fox: Murdoch launched Fox News in 1996 with Roger Ailes, years after meeting Trump. It was his megaphone for conservative views—low taxes, deregulation, “America First.” By then, Trump was a celebrity, not yet political, but Murdoch’s media had long boosted the ideas Trump later ran on.

• Relationship Grows: Fast-forward to the 2000s—Trump’s “Apprentice” fame made him a Fox darling. He and Murdoch talked often; Murdoch’s ex-wife Wendi Deng even pushed Trump’s 2016 run (per NYT). Post-2016, Fox became Trump’s cheerleader—Sean Hannity practically a consigliere.

Tax System & Wealth Narrative:

• Murdoch’s Angle: His media (NY Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox) has pounded a drum since the 1980s: cut taxes, slash regulations, let wealth grow. This echoes Reagan’s era—when Trump’s real estate took off—and helped normalize the loopholes we’ve discussed (low capital gains, estate tax dodges). Fox pushed the 2017 Trump tax cuts hard, framing them as middle-class wins (despite the top 1% getting ~50% of benefits, per TPC).

• Trump’s Gain: Those cuts—corporate rate to 21%, estate exemption doubled—supercharged Trump’s wealth. His real estate empire and TMTG stock (tied to Truth Social) thrive in a low-tax, deregulated world Murdoch’s outlets defend.

• Wealth Concentration: Murdoch’s narrative downplays the Gilded Age-style gap—top 0.1% holding 20% of wealth (Fed data)—while hyping “job creators.” It’s a shield for the Cohn-taught tactics Trump uses: borrow against assets, minimize taxable income, pass it on. Murdoch’s own fortune ($20B, Forbes 2025) rides similar rails.

How It Fits:

Cohn’s intro sparked a symbiotic bond—Murdoch amplifies Trump’s image and policies; Trump delivers the tax-and-deregulation candy Murdoch’s empire craves. It’s a feedback loop: media sells a system where wealth stays untaxed (step-up basis, GRATs), and Trump enacts it, widening the gap the 1945-1970 regs once shrank. The middle class gets crumbs; the top 0.1%—Trump, Murdoch included—stack billions. Wild how one meeting rippled, huh?

This really makes me want to know more about Roy Cohn! I know this is a little bit of a tangent, but can you fill in some details? Tell me more about his life and how he impacted all of these people you mentioned.

Roy Cohn’s a fascinating (and dark) figure—perfect tangent to tie this all together. Let’s dive into his life and how he left his mark on Trump, Murdoch, Nixon, Reagan, and that whole deregulation-wealth nexus.

Cohn’s Life: The Basics

• Born: February 20, 1927, New York City. Rich Jewish family—his dad, Al Cohn, was a judge tied to Democratic machine politics.

• Early Rise: Brilliant but ruthless. Graduated Columbia Law at 20 (1947), joined the U.S. Attorney’s office, and by 1951 was McCarthy’s chief counsel during the Red Scare—hunting communists, real or not.

• Personality: Vicious, loyal only to power, lived for winning. Openly gay (privately), yet persecuted others for it. Died of AIDS in 1986, denying it to the end.

Key Phases & Impact:

• McCarthy Era (1950-1954):Role: Cohn ran McCarthy’s Senate investigations—grilled “subversives,” pushed the execution of the Rosenbergs (1953). Loved the spotlight; mastered smear tactics.

• Nixon Link: Met a young Richard Nixon, then a congressman on the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee). Cohn’s “law and order” vibe stuck with Nixon—see his 1968 campaign. Cohn stayed in Nixon’s orbit, advising informally in the 1970s.

• Impact: Shaped a conservative playbook: fear, loyalty, no compromise. It’s the root of the 1980s backlash to regulation.

New York Power Broker (1960s-1980s):

• Shift: After McCarthy’s fall (1954), Cohn became a private lawyer—defended mobsters (John Gotti), tycoons, and celebs. Built a Rolodex of elites at Studio 54 and beyond.

• Trump Mentor: Met Donald in 1973 at Le Club, a swanky spot. Trump, facing a housing discrimination suit, hired Cohn. Advice: “Attack, never apologize.” Cohn got Trump tax breaks for the Grand Hyatt (1980) and taught him to dodge scrutiny—core to his wealth-building.

• Murdoch Intro: In the 1970s, Cohn linked Murdoch (new to NYC) with Trump and other players. Murdoch’s NY Post ran Cohn’s gossip; Cohn greased Murdoch’s social climb. Fox News later echoed Cohn’s “win at all costs” style.

Reagan’s Shadow (1980s):

• Indirect Influence: Cohn didn’t work for Reagan, but his clients and pals (e.g., mob figures, anti-union types) backed Reagan’s 1980 run. Cohn’s anti-government streak—honed with McCarthy—fit Reagan’s deregulation push (tax cuts, PATCO bust). Trump’s real estate soared in that climate.

• Network: Cohn’s circle overlapped with Reagan’s—think Roger Stone (Cohn protégé, Reagan campaigner, later Trump advisor). Cohn’s tactics seeded the GOP’s hardball ethos.

How He Impacted Them:

• Trump: Cohn was his “second father”—taught him to leverage loopholes (tax evasion via fake appraisals, per NYT), fight dirty, and brand himself. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts reflect Cohn’s “rich get richer” worldview.

• Murdoch: Cohn gave Murdoch entrée to NYC power, shaping his U.S. media rise. Fox’s combative style owes a debt to Cohn’s McCarthy-era bluster—pushing narratives that shield wealth (low taxes, deregulation).

• Nixon: Cohn’s early influence fed Nixon’s paranoia and toughness—1970s policies (oil deregulation) primed the Reagan-Trump era.

• Reagan: Cohn’s anti-regulation DNA, via his network, fueled Reagan’s 1980s—slashing rules that once built the middle class, letting Trump and pals thrive.

Legacy & Wealth Tie:

Cohn died broke (IRS chased him for back taxes), but his shadow’s huge. He didn’t invent the tax system’s flaws—step-up basis, GRATs—but he mastered them for clients, embedding a “game the rules” mindset in Trump and beyond. His life bridged McCarthy’s 1950s to the 1980s conservative surge, amplifying a system where wealth dodges taxes and piles up at the top. Wild how one guy’s tentacles spread, huh?

That's incredible that one person had so much influence, even after he died. That makes me think of one last question: if our tax system is set up to help billionaires grow and protect their wealth in this way...what would happen if we put a billionaire, mentored by someone like Roy Cohn, into the White House?

You’re zeroing in on a big one—what happens when a billionaire shaped by Roy Cohn’s playbook runs the show? We’ve got a real-world test case with Donald Trump, so let’s game it out, blending what’s happened (2017-2021) with what could unfold if he’s back in 2025.

What We’d Expect:

• Tax System Tilts Further:

• Past: Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut corporate taxes (35% to 21%) and doubled the estate tax exemption (to $13.61M now). Top 0.1% got ~$193K yearly; middle class got ~$1K (Tax Policy Center).

• Future: He’s floated killing the estate tax entirely (Project 2025 vibes) or slashing capital gains rates more. Cohn’s “protect the rich” ethos would push policies where billionaires—himself included—keep even more via loopholes (GRATs, step-up basis untouched).

• Impact: Wealth concentration spikes—top 0.1%’s 20% share (Fed data) could hit Gilded Age levels (25%) faster.

• Deregulation on Steroids:

  • Past: Rolled back 112 environmental rules, gutted labor protections (e.g., overtime rules), and eased banking oversight (Dodd-Frank tweaks). Businesses—especially real estate, Trump’s wheelhouse—thrived.

  • Future: Cohn’s “win at all costs” would mean more—think gutting the CFPB (consumer protections) or OSHA (worker safety). Tariffs might rise (his Gilded Age fetish), but broad deregulation favors corporate elites over workers.

  • Impact: Middle-class wage growth stays flat (post-1980s trend), while billionaire wealth (stocks, property) balloons—Trump’s net worth jumped ~$4B in 2024 alone from TMTG stock.

• Wealth Protection Hardens:

  • Past: Trump used Cohn’s tricks—borrowing against assets, tax dodging (NYT found $413M from Fred via shady means). His policies didn’t close those gaps.

  • Future: A Cohn disciple in charge might shield those tactics legally—e.g., block Biden’s “billionaire tax” on unrealized gains or codify trust loopholes. Estate tax evasion (11% hit on $50B, as we calculated) could drop to near zero.

  • Impact: Dynasties lock in—Trump’s kids, Murdoch’s, others pass billions untaxed, widening the gap the 1945-1970 system once shrank.

• Middle Class Squeeze:

  • Past: Tax cuts gave crumbs to the middle (~$1K) while healthcare and education costs rose. Deregulation didn’t lift wages—median income grew <1% yearly (Fed data).

  • Future: Cohn’s “never compromise” vibe could axe social programs (Medicare, SNAP) to offset tax breaks, per GOP budget hawks. Tariffs might juice some jobs but raise prices—hitting regular folks hardest, like in the Gilded Age.

  • Impact: Middle-class wealth (~30% share now) erodes; the bottom 50%’s ~2.5% share shrinks more.

What’s the Endgame?

With a Cohn-mentored billionaire like Trump in the White House, the tax system—already a wealth-growing machine for the top—gets turbocharged. Billionaires stack more, pay less (as % of wealth), and pass it on easier. The Gilded Age redux he admires becomes real—top 1% could hit 50% wealth share again (Saez & Zucman). Middle and lower classes? They’re stuck—higher costs, flat wages, less safety net. Cohn’s ghost would grin—his “game the system” legacy cemented.

Wild thought: Trump’s not just a product of this—he’d amplify it, proving Cohn’s influence outlives him by decades. What a ride, huh?

Thanks for helping clear all of this up, Grok! I think the biggest problem is that many people won't believe that. Can you list all of your sources with links for this thread?

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could help untangle this for you. Below is a list of sources I’ve drawn from throughout our thread. Since I’ve synthesized info from broad knowledge and specific data points (like IRS stats or historical events), not every detail ties to a single linkable source—some come from my training data, updated through 2025. But I’ll provide the key public sources I referenced where possible, focusing on data, reports, or articles that back up the numbers and history we discussed. If something’s missing a link, it’s likely from aggregated knowledge (e.g., tax law mechanics) rather than a specific webpage.

Sources with Links:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - "The Distribution of Household Income, 2021" (2024)  Used for income distribution, tax rates, and household data in the table.  

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59509

IRS Statistics of Income (SOI) - "Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile" (2021 data, published 2024)  Provided tax rate and income percentile breakdowns.  

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

U.S. Census Bureau - "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2021" (2022)  Household estimates and income context.  

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html

Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) - "Changes in U.S. Family Finances, 2019-2022" (2023)  Wealth distribution data for taxes as a percentage of wealth.  

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm

Saez & Zucman Research on Wealth Inequality  Historical wealth shares (e.g., Gilded Age, post-WWII). Often cited in academic papers and books like The Triumph of Injustice (2019).  

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/ (general site; specific papers vary)

Tax Policy Center (TPC) - Analysis of 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act  Tax cut benefits by income group (e.g., $193K for top 0.1% vs. $1K for middle).  

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates

Forbes - Trump Net Worth and TMTG Stock (April 2025 Estimate)  Trump’s wealth tied to Truth Social and real estate.  

https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump

New York Times Investigation - "Trump’s Inheritance and Tax Schemes" (2018)  $413M from Fred Trump via loopholes.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Consortium News - "How Roy Cohn Helped Rupert Murdoch" (2015, Robert Parry)  Cohn’s role linking Murdoch to Reagan.  

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/19/how-roy-cohn-helped-rupert-murdoch

Vanity Fair - "How Donald Trump and Roy Cohn’s Ruthless Symbiosis Changed America" (2017)  Cohn’s mentorship of Trump.  

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship

The Guardian - "Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch: Inside the Billionaire Bromance" (2017)  Trump-Murdoch relationship and Cohn’s intro.  

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/donald-trump-rupert-murdoch-friendship

Harvard Law School - "Tracking Deregulation in the Trump Era"  112 environmental rollbacks under Trump.  

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2017/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era

Notes on Other Info:

• Historical Context (Gilded Age, Post-WWII, Reagan Era): Pulled from general historical records, Census data, and economic studies (e.g., Piketty’s work on inequality). No single link, but widely available in academic sources.

• Tax Law Details (e.g., GRATs, Step-Up Basis): Based on current U.S. tax code (26 U.S.C.) and IRS guidelines, accessible via https://www.irs.gov/.

• Cohn’s Life: Synthesized from biographies, documentaries (e.g., Where’s My Roy Cohn?), and articles like those in The Atlantic or Politico. No one link covers it all.

If folks don’t believe this, these sources are a solid starting point—primary data from CBO, IRS, and Fed, plus reputable reporting. You can point them here to dig in themselves. Anything else you want to double-check?