- #36
ThomasT
- 529
- 0
If there's money to be made via investment or business startups or expansions, then I don't think that a few points increase in taxation is going to discourage anybody from participating. But US tax increases would tend to increase the probability that individual entrepreneurs and companies would look to countries other than the US, and whether taxes are increased or not it doesn't seem that the US can compete with some rather large overseas labor markets.Ivan Seeking said:I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment.
That's true, but suppose that taxes were increased or decreased some number of points, say, across the board. My guess is that neither action would make much difference, either to the rich or the poor and middle classes, or to the country's economic problems.Ivan Seeking said:To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks.
Politicians have been so busy trying to appear to be fair, as well as appeasing their benefactors, that they've created a self-defeating system of myriad tax credits and deductions and exemptions and loopholes. Imho, they would do well to just abolish the whole thing and start from scratch with a flat tax and no credits, deductions, exemptions and loopholes. (But of course that's not going to happen.)Ivan Seeking said:But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes!
Then they could focus on the big wastes in medicare, medicaid, social security, defense, foreign aid, etc. How to cut these expenditures, say, in half without creating real hardships, or real national security problems? Wrt social security I think it can be done. Wrt other programs I have no idea.
Anyway, wrt the thread's title, yes I'm in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy ... just for a certain period. Why not? It's not going to cause the wealthy any undue discomfort. Yes, the wealty already pay most of the taxes, but then the wealthy have most of the money. So I say do it and see if it helps. My guess is that it won't. But it's an empirical question, so we should try it and see.
We might need to balance the budget, but it appears doubtful that that's ever going to happen. And as the US declines we can keep in mind that for several generations it's 'poor' enjoyed a much higher standard of living than most of the people in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, there's a real possibility that several generations from now that might not be the case.Ivan Seeking said:We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.