4 ms·
True, it is not exactly the same, because the wealthier people would probably still benefit disproportionately from most government spending. But by taking weal
by mckirk 6y ago
True, it is not exactly the same, because the wealthier people would probably still benefit disproportionately from most government spending. But by taking wealth out of the system at the top, you at least limit the growth of the divergence between rich and poor. And of course, you could in theory use the additional tax income to actually help the poor with better public education and better government-sponsored healthcare -- but that I guess would be dirty socialism.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoMy point is you take the money from the top, you kick it some distance (but not that far, generally) down the ladder and then that money inevitably makes its way back up. The problem isn't that we don't tax rich people enough. It's that the way the system is built, rich people become black holes that suck in any wealth that enters their orbit. Once they have it, it's effectively locked away from everyone. Taxes are one way to try and slow that down but it's clearly not a perfect solution and simply turning up the amount of tax isn't going to stop it.