3 ms·
>Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money? If by eliminate, you mean equalize the inequality - then the remaining 99% will contribute more as t
by Rury 7y ago
>Eliminate the 1%, and who is going to make up that money?
If by eliminate, you mean equalize the inequality - then the remaining 99% will contribute more as they'll be making more money...
- WalterBright 7y agoIt's not zero-sum. For an analogy, you can shear a sheep every year, but you can eat a sheep only once.
- Rury 7y agoIt'd be closer to zero-sum than your analogy, but either way it wouldn't need to be, as taxes could be re-adjusted as needed.
- WalterBright 7y agoIt's a nice theory, but has never worked out well for countries that tried it.
- smegma2 7y agoI guess you're saying that the earnings of the 1% stifle the earnings of the 99%. Do you know how we can go about verifying this, as well as finding out what upper percentile of earners stifle the earnings of others? For example do the earnings of the top 10% stifle the earnings of the top 90% as well?
- Rury 7y agoI'm not saying anything about stifling. I'm saying hypothetically you can take the top richest people's incomes and redistribute it to everyone. Since everyone else would then have more income, everyone else would be paying more in taxes; counter-balancing the loss in taxes the richest people would no longer be paying. The federal income wouldn't perfectly balance though, as some of that re-distributed income would be taxed at lower tax brackets. However, the government could always re-adjust the tax brackets as necessary to make it zero-sum. Anyhow, the broader point is that inequality isn't a requirement when it comes to federal taxes.