5 ms·

Just to clarify: I don't think that "inequality is driven by the Laffer curve". But I do think that lower and lower taxation on the rich since Reaganomics has g

Just to clarify: I don't think that "inequality is driven by the Laffer curve". But I do think that lower and lower taxation on the rich since Reaganomics has greatly contributed to the growth of inequality; thus the (joking) reference to Laffer. Also to clarify, I'm against punishing marginal rates like there were at some point also in the USA, but also find crazy that Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate than Buffet's.

dnautics 11y ago
Taxation on the rich doesn't change inequality very much, after all, its effects are linear. What's the difference between 1 billion and 1.2 billion? Look to see where there are compounding effects. Taxes on the rich have increased since Obama has come into the presidency, and yet income inequality still rises.
- beat 11y ago
  Taxes on the rich have changed very little since Obama took office. During the 2012 election, one of the things that eventually came out was Mitt Romney's effective tax rate - 14%. This is less than half the effective tax rate of my own upper middle class family that earned 1/100 as much in the same year. Not much has changed since then. This is a big problem.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    why is this a big problem? And why is 'not taking from the rich' a bigger problem than 'actively stealing from the poor'?
    - beat 11y ago
      It's a social justice issue. Why does a very, very rich person like Mitt Romney pay far less in taxes than the middle class (or even the poor)?
      - dnautics 11y ago
        I am pretty sure that Mitt Romney paid more taxes than most people in this country. He certainly paid far more than me. Could you please give a concrete definition of 'social justice'? How do we know when we have achieved it, and what benchmarks do we have for accountability on those matters. Also, who gets to set these benchmarks?
        beat 11y ago
        I'm not going to debate the meaning of "social justice" with you, because I suspect you'll just keep moving goalposts. That said, fairness matters. Taxes as a percentage of income should be, at bare minimum, flat. It's generally accepted that they should be progressive - that the wealthy should pay a greater percentage than the poor, because they are more able to afford it, and because the high-velocity money of the poor and middle class boosts economic growth more than the low-velocity money of the rich. So when someone as wealthy as Mitt Romney is paying less than half the effective tax rate of people who actually have to work for a living, it's unfair. And this tax break to someone so rich - a break of well over a million dollars - has to be made up by the taxes of others. His cut increases the tax rate on hundreds of working families. That's terrible social policy.

dnautics 11y ago

Taxation on the rich doesn't change inequality very much, after all, its effects are linear. What's the difference between 1 billion and 1.2 billion? Look to see where there are compounding effects. Taxes on the rich have increased since Obama has come into the presidency, and yet income inequality still rises.

beat 11y ago
Taxes on the rich have changed very little since Obama took office. During the 2012 election, one of the things that eventually came out was Mitt Romney's effective tax rate - 14%. This is less than half the effective tax rate of my own upper middle class family that earned 1/100 as much in the same year. Not much has changed since then. This is a big problem.
- dnautics 11y ago
  why is this a big problem? And why is 'not taking from the rich' a bigger problem than 'actively stealing from the poor'?
  - beat 11y ago
    It's a social justice issue. Why does a very, very rich person like Mitt Romney pay far less in taxes than the middle class (or even the poor)?
    - dnautics 11y ago
      I am pretty sure that Mitt Romney paid more taxes than most people in this country. He certainly paid far more than me. Could you please give a concrete definition of 'social justice'? How do we know when we have achieved it, and what benchmarks do we have for accountability on those matters. Also, who gets to set these benchmarks?
      - beat 11y ago
        I'm not going to debate the meaning of "social justice" with you, because I suspect you'll just keep moving goalposts. That said, fairness matters. Taxes as a percentage of income should be, at bare minimum, flat. It's generally accepted that they should be progressive - that the wealthy should pay a greater percentage than the poor, because they are more able to afford it, and because the high-velocity money of the poor and middle class boosts economic growth more than the low-velocity money of the rich. So when someone as wealthy as Mitt Romney is paying less than half the effective tax rate of people who actually have to work for a living, it's unfair. And this tax break to someone so rich - a break of well over a million dollars - has to be made up by the taxes of others. His cut increases the tax rate on hundreds of working families. That's terrible social policy.