Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
My question is, why are you more concerned about what the tax rate on income above a level of more than 100 times average income of a worker just out of college was, 50 years ago, than you seem to be about what has happened since, about the trend, and the current status quo, and the inroads that the rich have made, using the political and the propaganda clout that they've bought with their increasing wealth, that now enables them to carve out a chunk of the "pie" for themselves. that is nearly 1/3 greater than 50 years ago. That leaves the rest of us....the other 90 plus percent, with 56 percent, instead of the 65.9 percent that we controlled in 1956.
|
Because it jumped out at me. It was a clear highlighting of an alleged problem area amongst many vague and/or complex problems. I don't necessarily have a problem with a statistic such as 90% holding 56% - what are these 90% doing with their resources? What value are they providing? How do I know that there's any injustice in that figure at all? A 90% marginal tax rate, on the other hand, is clearly absurd. There's really no way that the government's services for the rich - no matter how disproportionately rendered - make up for that 90% confiscation of income.
Point to an instance of corporate welfare or other such redistribution to the wealthy and I'll condemn it. But reducing the tax burden to a figure still proportionally higher than what anyone else pays - that doesn't cut it.