2 ms·
Oh boy, I can see how this ends. The US already has a very progressive system. The aim here appears to be: increase govt spending. Okay, the only way to do tha
by hogFeast 7y ago
Oh boy, I can see how this ends.
The US already has a very progressive system. The aim here appears to be: increase govt spending. Okay, the only way to do that (looking at other countries that have high shares of govt spending to GDP) is to reduce, not increase, the progressiveness of the tax system.
The quantum of "taxes were higher in the past" is utterly wrong. They were marginally higher in the past but not by much (the big step change was JFK, then Reagan, then back up through Clinton)...how does the author even think govt gets paid for? Revenues are not swinging wildly all over the place.
If you are worried about middle-class income growth, it is worth asking how their income growth has been so low given that a huge chunk of people pay no tax at all and the middle-class pay substantially less than almost anywhere else. That is the truly concerning thing about progressive tax systems, how do you pay for stuff when most people don't pay tax? And the political response to taxation is always: "someone else will pay for my stuff...someone else!!!".
A global minimum corporation tax rate of 25% is ludicrous. I remember talking to a fund manager who talked regularly to Peter Oppenheimer about Apple's offshore cash...the solution, according to the genius Peter, was just for all the countries in the world to just make their tax systems equal to the US...easy...and then the problem would be solved. What is extraordinary about the charlatanism of the article is that the author actually thinks this view is logical. Apple just believed it so they didn't have to pay tax...but this is apparently someone's logical view...2019
Tangent: the US has gone way down the path of "economics and politics as objective science"...this has led to a host of people battering other people with apparently "logical" but totally impractical "solutions". Common-sense thinking and understanding history (i.e. what people have actually done in similar situations) is useful info that would help here.
- secabeen 7y ago>The US already has a very progressive system. How can this be the case if the taxes actually paid (which is what the chart shows), is largely flat across income bands, between about 22 and 28%? Sure, between 1950 and 1980, the system was progressive, but the actual percentage paid by the wealthy has come down over the past 30 years, it's now much much less progressive than it was 50-70 years ago.