I’m your typical young Wall Street trash. Born wealthy -> Ivy League -> work at the bank. It has been way too easy for me to position myself to perpetuate this cycle of income inequality. It’s not like my dad called anyone for any quid pro quo, it’s just that I had a lot of access and good role models.
I always thought in undergrad I should take this opinion with a grain of salt, but now that I’ve been paying taxes a while I still don’t see what’s wrong with this argument:
- tax the rich
- increase estate tax and lower the eligibility threshold. Remove all those loopholes my parents had the estate lawyers figure out for my benefit.
I came to this conclusion because:
a) if you look at the consumption function, it’s clear why the rich get richer. The poor spend everything just to put food on the table and still can’t get everything they need. The rich spend only slightly more than the middle class -> they consistently have money left over to save -> they end up hoarding all the money. If the distribution of income was more even, more people would spend enough to meet there needs and you’d get more net economic activity, no?
b) estate tax. Basically my argument is it’s unfair that systematically people who grow up in the best situations also are due to inherit a lot of money. I can’t imagine how that’s not a recipe for income inequality.
I’m posting this because I want someone like @Scataphagos or @Handle123 to change my opinion. I think if I remember right @newworldmn or whatever likes to take a shot at the “liberal elite” now and then too. I honestly am openminded and came in hopes of getting my mind blown. That was a lot of typing, so hopefully I get a real answer for my troubles.
For argument sake, the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing all-right in terms of innovation and business development, yet their tax rates are pretty high. Work ethic and desire to innovate or build things is largely a matter of culture - Russian business taxes are very low yet the country remains the same kleptocracy it was during the Soviet times.You can tax the rich a little higher. But if it's too high, there will be no incentive for innovation, business expansion and worse, they will flee to another country. Laymen will become lazy and pampered. Why work hard when at the end of the day, you are still going to be almost as rich as those who work harder.
Free market capitalism would be wonderful if they ever tried it in the USA....
Hint: LTCM/Detroit/2008housing/etc.
Semantics. I don't mind national socialist. But the socialism that is currently being advocated by the left and elite globalists is 'global socialism'. The goal is to form a 'One World Government'.
What I mean by national socialism is whenever there's an excess money in the government's coffers, it could be used to feed the poor and help the poor. Enough for them to survive and hopefully they will find jobs and make a living. I also believe in eliminating job-cutting regulations, etc.
But the current state of socialism is more of communism, where people want everybody to be equal. This will never work because some people work harder, some are smarter and they definitely deserve better.
For argument sake, the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing all-right in terms of innovation and business development, yet their tax rates are pretty high. Work ethic and desire to innovate or build things is largely a matter of culture - Russian business taxes are very low yet the country remains the same kleptocracy it was during the Soviet times.
Now, the reality is that most upper-middle class Americans (the sweet spot for taxation - you make enough to get shafted yet not enough to pay for a tax shelter) already pay taxes that are pretty high, we just happen to break them down into all sorts of buckets (federal, state, local, real estate etc). We also don't get nearly as much for our taxes as the Europeans do, which means you end up paying for-profit prices for things that you'd get for free there.
Do you mind elaborating more on this?We also don't get nearly as much for our taxes as the Europeans do, which means you end up paying for-profit prices for things that you'd get for free there.
Semantics. I don't mind national socialist. But the socialism that is currently being advocated by the left and elite globalists is 'global socialism'. The goal is to form a 'One World Government'.
What I mean by national socialism is whenever there's an excess money in the government's coffers, it could be used to feed the poor and help the poor. Enough for them to survive and hopefully they will find jobs and make a living. I also believe in eliminating job-cutting regulations, etc.
But the current state of socialism is more of communism, where people want everybody to be equal. This will never work because some people work harder, some are smarter and they definitely deserve better.
Professor calls to tax the rich at 80 percent
Professor calls to tax the rich at 80 percent