4 ms·
The biggest issue I have with this is: > "the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality," Wording a qu
by m11a 7y ago
The biggest issue I have with this is:
> "the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality,"
Wording a question like that is so... biased. Maybe we should work on fixing how the enormous amount of tax money is spent now before asking taxpayers for more? $700bn in funding for military (around $1tn all funds considered), yet there's "increasing inequality". US spends 2x the amount the UK does on health per capita, yet the UK can afford single payer health. Administration costs are through the roof.
I think this is a case where "throwing more money at the problem" isn't the right solution.
- DuskStar 7y agoHell, there's NOT increasing inequality by sane definitions - meaning if you count government taxes and transfers. Yes, pre-tax, no-transfer income inequality has increased, but by definition increasing taxes and transfers won't fix that. And once you include ss/welfare/snap/eitc/etc as well as taxes, income inequality today has barely changed over the past century. And the recent "increasing wealth inequality" papers have based on the dubious assumption that "wealth = capital gains income / risk-free instantaneous rate of return", [0] which means that wealth goes up as interest rates go down if income holds steady. 0: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wealth-and-taxes-part-v.html https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wealth-and-taxes-...