3 ms·
The virtue of voters knowing what they’re paying is that this awareness can inform policy. And indeed it has. They want to “tax the rich.” That’s how we arrive
by closeparen 6y ago
The virtue of voters knowing what they’re paying is that this awareness can inform policy. And indeed it has. They want to “tax the rich.” That’s how we arrive at this question. I agree that it’s not without side effects - the rich are capital, taxing away capital means less good cheap stuff to buy. But we can also quite reasonably decide that there is more than enough good cheap stuff to buy, and not nearly enough healthcare. Or education, or housing, or whatever else. And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags, in order to afford those things.
- roenxi 6y ago> And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags.. Well, we could do that by adjusting the income tax rate and capital gains tax rate. That is going to my central point here, the outcome looks a lot like an income tax, except instead of targeting rich people we're targeting the systems that support people who eat cheeseburgers and think iPhones & handbags are signs of being classy. You're describing a world here where resources are directed towards healthcare and I'm pretty sure the rich aren't actually going to give anything up from their lifestyles. Where are these resources coming from? It is better to stick to CGT and income tax. And a land tax if you want to soak the rich. Maybe the low hanging fruit of stopping the printing of money and giving it the the rich too, most everyone agrees on that point in practice.
- closeparen 6y agoIncome tax soaks the cohort of "rich people" who make hundreds of thousands as Apple engineers, but not the people who make hundreds of millions as Apple shareholders.