3 ms·
Unless you argue that everyone should be taxed 100%, then there is some economically-optimal tax rate schedule. It follows that the current rates might exceed t
by jeffdavis 12y ago
Unless you argue that everyone should be taxed 100%, then there is some economically-optimal tax rate schedule. It follows that the current rates might exceed the optimal ones, and therefore a tax reduction may be entirely appropriate.
Calling every tax reduction for a higher bracket "trickle down" is simply name-calling. You can say that all the way up to 100%.
- adamnemecek 12y agoNice straw man argument you got there. There is a difference between a tax reduction and a tax reduction with the intent that the tax decrease will propagate to the rest of the society. As in, sure decrease taxes but don't claim that said tax decrease for the wealthiest is in the interest of the poorest.
- megablast 12y agoIt might also follow that a tax increase is appropriate. According to the economic indicators from California, there is some basis for this. Whereas you have not presented anything.
- jeffdavis 12y agoSure, it might. This whole thread is essentially absent of any information (to the extent there is any, it is far below the threshold for making any useful conclusion). I was responding to the implication that a 3% tax reduction is "trickle down" and therefore "demonstrated to be false".