3 ms·
This whole thing is about taxes and yet neither side is honest enough to acknowledge that fact. No one will begrudge PG, Zuckerberg or any of the other high ear
by curun1r 11y ago
This whole thing is about taxes and yet neither side is honest enough to acknowledge that fact. No one will begrudge PG, Zuckerberg or any of the other high earners continuing to amass considerable wealth so long as they're paying significantly more taxes than they are now.
When that happens, even though there are very rich people, there's also a healthy middle class and the social support systems (safety nets, education, etc) for poor people to reach the middle class. But what we have now is rich people hiding behind capital gains tax rates to actually pay less than people who earn significantly less that they do. And PG, as someone who earns his living primarily through investing, is no doubt taking advantage of this situation.
When PG says "don't address income inequality directly," it's the equivalent of saying "don't raise my taxes" since raising taxes on the wealthy is the method for addressing income inequality directly. IMHO, the reason he's gotten so much flack is that there is a very large proportion of the population that believes that we need to close the loopholes that the uber-wealthy use to avoid paying the right amount of taxes and increase the top marginal tax brackets to above 50%. And yet he wants to talk about addressing income inequality directly as if his critics want to keep people from earning that much in the first place.
I can't tell if he's being deliberately disingenuous or if he actually believes that's what people are suggesting, but the net result is a back and forth conversation at two different contextual levels.
- shadowsun7 11y agoWait, did you read the essay? He talks about closing tax loopholes and even calls that 'stealing' (search for it in the essay). He also argues: > For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. I believe, though I may well be wrong, that PG isn't against taxing the rich in order to provide social services and increased education, healthcare, what-have-you.
- raldi 11y agoI think you're right, but this is indeed a large misinterpretation hazard. When he writes about this in the future, he should probably explicitly say, "Tax the 1% far more heavily to pay for the social mobility and equal-access-to-politics programs; that's the only realistic way to fund them."
- shadowsun7 11y agoThis is a fair point. Thanks.
- curun1r 11y agoPerhaps you can enlighten me then...if he's arguing that we close loopholes (and the lower capital gains rate is a loophole) and increase taxes on the wealthy to an over 50% marginal rate, what direct attacks on income inequality is he arguing against? How are people attacking income inequality in any concrete way that isn't about taxation? Because if there isn't some concrete attack on income inequality, then we're arguing about an abstract concept, which is just pointless.
- vlehto 11y agoYou could tax big incomes in excess of 50%. Give them low inflation, no inheritance tax and pour all that extra money to defense. Congrats, you have fixed the position of a rich caste.