so what? they also received the greatest relief by far of the tax cuts. Logically speaking, the wealthiest receive the most benefits from the US economic system, so it only makes sense that they contribute the most to its upkeep, via taxes.
If one views the wealthy as parasites who deserve to give back what they've been able to take, a truly "progressive" tax would mean taking back a substantial amount of the differential, and leave their earnings in, say, the middle fifth.
If one views the wealthy as having taken risks which has enabled them not only to earn their wealth but also to create jobs as well as providing products and services that would otherwise remain unavailable (another sort of progress), then they should be taxed at the same rate as other people. Even the more passive wealthy investor doesn't just bury his money in a hole, but invests it (at some risk) in companies that benefit the economy as a whole. Taking money away from the wealthy for government spending assumes that the government knows better where to spend it than they do, which is often not the case.
Admittedly, people seem to be unhappier when they see others better off than they are. In that case, taking money away from the wealthy to put everyone at the same level is justified. New products and services might not be available, but since we wouldn't know what we didn't have, we could hardly miss them. So, who's the Communist candidate?
2 comments:
so what? they also received the greatest relief by far of the tax cuts. Logically speaking, the wealthiest receive the most benefits from the US economic system, so it only makes sense that they contribute the most to its upkeep, via taxes.
If one views the wealthy as parasites who deserve to give back what they've been able to take, a truly "progressive" tax would mean taking back a substantial amount of the differential, and leave their earnings in, say, the middle fifth.
If one views the wealthy as having taken risks which has enabled them not only to earn their wealth but also to create jobs as well as providing products and services that would otherwise remain unavailable (another sort of progress), then they should be taxed at the same rate as other people. Even the more passive wealthy investor doesn't just bury his money in a hole, but invests it (at some risk) in companies that benefit the economy as a whole. Taking money away from the wealthy for government spending assumes that the government knows better where to spend it than they do, which is often not the case.
Admittedly, people seem to be unhappier when they see others better off than they are. In that case, taking money away from the wealthy to put everyone at the same level is justified. New products and services might not be available, but since we wouldn't know what we didn't have, we could hardly miss them. So, who's the Communist candidate?
Post a Comment