4 ms·
By my read, this means that we should raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%. Why? If it doesn't matter, then you might as well make the unwashed masses (like
by sanj 18y ago
By my read, this means that we should raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%. Why? If it doesn't matter, then you might as well make the unwashed masses (like me!) happy that the rich are "doing their fair share".
Hauser fails to see that savvy political policy does not flow from "rational" economic policy.
- wmf 18y agoRead more carefully. If you increase the marginal tax rate, GDP probably decreases and thus tax revenue decreases.
- dreish 18y agoExcept it didn't. GDP grew faster in the fifties, with a 90% "millionaire's tax", than it did in the eighties, as top marginal rates were being cut to their lowest levels. Numbers from here: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg But this is something I noticed around 16 years ago.
- Spyckie 18y agoThanks, finally someone is pointing to real data rather than just waiving a magic wand in the air.
- jamespitts 18y agoThe real problem with this scenario is that those people who are being taxed 90% might feel less of an obligation to contribute back through charity (even if they are paying far less than 90%).