3 ms·
That isn’t what he is saying. He is saying that tax reform needs to be progressive, meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when
by mattmaroon 10mo ago
That isn’t what he is saying. He is saying that tax reform needs to be progressive, meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when they earn.
A progressive tax will tax them more when they buy luxury items and thus make them buy fewer luxury items.
- pydry 10mo ago>tax reform needs to be progressive, meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when they earn. This misses the point. It needs to hit them when they own not when they spend. >A progressive tax will tax them more when they buy luxury items Which still wont be progressive it's the yield bearing assets Jeff Bezos buys which are the main problem not the fancy candlesticks he decorates his house with.
- bigbadfeline 10mo ago> meaning it hits rich people more, and it hits them when they spend not when they earn. The parent of your comment made a pretty good case precisely against this. And it didn't talk about all spending, only about luxury one as exemplified by the following, rather misleading, quote from the OP: >> Any tax reform that fails to reduce luxury consumption by the rich will completely fail to reduce economic inequality. This is wrong and pointing it out is good.
- zozbot234 10mo agoIt's not a good argument at all. "Earning" is a socially productive activity, far more so than directing resources towards the making of a huge luxury yacht for private consumption (or similar kinds of luxury spending). There really isn't any good argument for taxing earnings or saved/invested assets per se, as opposed to consumption.