Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
....since you are obviously objecting to my entire argument, ace....
|
I don't object to your entire argument. The parts that I object to, I comment on.
Quote:
|
can you post whether there would be any point....say, when the top ten percent owned 90 percent of all US assets....when you would support the idea of the bottom 67 percent of voters on the wealth scale....voting in a political platform and representative majority, committed to raising the top progressive income tax bracket to 70 percent of all income above....say.... $500,000...and an inheritance tax of 67 percent on amounts of estates valued above $10 million....the numbers are simply examples....the crux of the question is....are you in favor of simply not interfering with the present wealth consolidation trend into the control of a tiny percentage of US residents...and letting "nature"....which history tells us is either violent revolution or...perhaps a Cesar Chavez style "intervention"....take it's course?
|
In this country a person born in poverty can become one of the wealthiest people in the world. And anyone through education, work, and savings can live a very comfortable lifestyle regardless of where they started in life.
Progressive tax rates don't really hurt people already wealthy, they have options to avoid excessive tax rates.
Progressive tax rates hurt those accumulating wealth.
If you have a marginal income tax rate of 70% (not including state, local and other taxes), the family who hits that for the first time is suddenly faced with a situation where their ability to save additional income may go to zero real fast, putting the brakes on their ability to accumulate wealth or even pay for college for their children (In your view, you probably think it better that the family rely on government rather than their own money to pay for education - I don't).
Then your idea of a 67% death tax is meaningless. Only people who fail to plan would pay a 67% death tax. Everyone else would spend the money, give it away, leave it in corporations, or put into trusts. Close all those loop holes, and then the assets go overseas. The death tax should be 0, we should tax consumption and not have a double tax on earnings from work/savings/investments.
Again, it comes down to the question of what is the most efficient tax rate (and perhaps tax structure). I think that rate is going to be closer to zero, you seem to think it would be closer to 100%. In the end that is really all that "Supply Side" is all about.
A Keynesian economist would argue that on the demand side, government can stimulate the economy through deficit spending. On the other side of the equation a Supply Side economist would argue that government returning tax dollars to the private sector can stimulate the economy. Both positions can be correct depending on the circumstances.