10-20-2020, 06:46 PM
(10-20-2020, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm genuinely confused, here. It seriously seems like there is an argument for a plutocracy being made if we have a progressive tax structure.
One of the things not being said, here, is that an argument for a progressive tax structure is that those in higher income brackets often receive more in public benefits. I know, everyone likes to think of the "welfare queen" image, but there are studies that support the idea that higher earners tend to receive more in benefits from the government because of certain incentives, utilization of services, etc. Remember the "you didn't build that" comment that everyone took out of context? That was about this sort of thing. High earners often earn their wage with the help of public services, and taxes pay for that.
Anyway, we live in a democratic society, which means how much you pay in taxes is not supposed to impact your voice in government. I understand that our Gini coefficient is more like countries that are pay-to-play than it is like other western democracies, but that doesn't mean we should try to slip further in that direction.
I've honestly never understood the resistance to higher incomes paying a higher percentage. IIRC you and I had a back and forth as I dislike a flat tax because 20% of 40k is far more significant to the person paying it than 20% of 2 million. I think the back and forth here is one irrelevancy led to another and the discussion became the usual "I don't like you, you don't like me" back and forth. I don't think a return to the high end tax rater of the past are an answer, there's just too many ways to funnel you money out of the country. Closing up many of the loopholes, or limiting deductions for higher earners would go a long way towards amending that.
(10-20-2020, 06:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, Matt, you lost ‘em at plutocracy.
Bfine and I have gone head to head numerous times in the past, but I'd never accuse him of being stupid.
