3 ms·

The fact that a small percentage of Americans pay a large percentage of total taxes is a sign of income inequality, not an argument against it. The lower 80% do

by bbctol 9y ago

The fact that a small percentage of Americans pay a large percentage of total taxes is a sign of income inequality, not an argument against it. The lower 80% don't pay nearly as much in taxes because for the past 30 years, they've been going broke, hence the article being responded to here. The top 10% of Americans own three quarters of the countries wealth; they aren't "shouldering more of the burden" when they pay most of the tax, they're being taxed reasonably in a system where they have unreasonable wealth.

tengbretson 9y ago
You are right. That figure absolutely is a sign of income inequality. The idea that the wealthy's tax burden should increase as a result of that is ridiculous, however. > X increasing is an indicator that Y is increasing. Therefore we need to increase X more in order to make Y decrease.
- bbctol 9y ago
  Wait, are you implying that the logic in that last sentence is false? That makes perfect sense given what X and Y actually signify. That's like saying "The faster the boat fills with water, the faster you try to bail out! And you think bailing out even faster will somehow be a good thing?"
  - ebspelman 9y ago
    Yeah, I spent a few minutes going over the last sentence in tengbretson's comment. I would actually recharacterize Piketty's (and the author of this chart) argument as: "X increasing is a symptom that Y is increasing. Let's implement policy A. This may temporarily increase X, but it will stop Y from increasing, which will in turn stop X from increasing in the long run."
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > The idea that the wealthy's tax burden should increase as a result of [growing income inequality] is ridiculous, however. The issue is that inequality is growing to a point that there is a potential for social, economic, and political destabilization. How do you propose the issue be addressed? Because it should be apparent that trickle-down economics isn't occuring, and I don't see how things can improve without some sort of wealth redistribution.

by bbctol 9y ago

tengbretson 9y ago

You are right. That figure absolutely is a sign of income inequality. The idea that the wealthy's tax burden should increase as a result of that is ridiculous, however. > X increasing is an indicator that Y is increasing. Therefore we need to increase X more in order to make Y decrease.

bbctol 9y ago
Wait, are you implying that the logic in that last sentence is false? That makes perfect sense given what X and Y actually signify. That's like saying "The faster the boat fills with water, the faster you try to bail out! And you think bailing out even faster will somehow be a good thing?"
- ebspelman 9y ago
  Yeah, I spent a few minutes going over the last sentence in tengbretson's comment. I would actually recharacterize Piketty's (and the author of this chart) argument as: "X increasing is a symptom that Y is increasing. Let's implement policy A. This may temporarily increase X, but it will stop Y from increasing, which will in turn stop X from increasing in the long run."
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> The idea that the wealthy's tax burden should increase as a result of [growing income inequality] is ridiculous, however. The issue is that inequality is growing to a point that there is a potential for social, economic, and political destabilization. How do you propose the issue be addressed? Because it should be apparent that trickle-down economics isn't occuring, and I don't see how things can improve without some sort of wealth redistribution.