3 ms·
Here's the usual story: 1.The rich propose higher taxes for themselves 2.The middle class and the poor approve that gesture, as it's "distribution of wealth"
by moralsupply 7y ago
Here's the usual story:
1.The rich propose higher taxes for themselves
2.The middle class and the poor approve that gesture, as it's "distribution of wealth"
3.Legislative and executive branches approve higher taxes for people who earn above $100k/year
4.The rich manage to not pay those taxes using all sorts of devices
5.The middle class now pay more taxes
5.The government uses the extra income to grow its own size and support the rich through cronyism
- ergothus 7y agoI'm not sure how "usual" your version is. In the US, tax cuts on the rich have been the norm for most of my adult life, often fairly obvious. So points 1 and 2 of your list dont match. I'm not saying your scenario is invalid or unlikely, but it's not the one I've been part of.
- chrispeel 7y agoA progressive tax change can be revenue-neutral, so that the end result is exactly the same govt size as before. I.e. the govt growth that you're imagining in your last item does not need to happen, even if the previous items occur. If you try for a revenue-neutral change, and the rich somehow avoid paying their taxes, I fail to see how this would result in the middle class paying more taxes without a further tax change. If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code, including incentives and enforcement to overcome this. Don't just throw up your hands when you face a problem.
- moralsupply 7y ago> If the rich avoid taxes, then we should change the tax code I'm in for that. Make taxes optional, so that if you believe they are a good thing, you pay taxes. If I think they provide no value to me, I pay no taxes and instead I contract services in the free market. That way everybody is happy and get what they want.