>My argument, based on observations and basic economic principles, is that progressive tax rates help cement income inequality.
What observations? When the U.S. has had the most progressive tax structure, inequality has been lowest, and vice versa. It's totally fine to argue that this was due to other factors, and you could be right, but there's no evidence of the timing going the other way, right?
>What basic economic principles?
Common sense would tell you that redistribution redistributes... whether that's the moral thing to do can be argued, but it's math.
>Progressive tax rates are meant to go after all that speculative income, but more often than not, it becomes a huge tax on the upper middle class.
How do you define upper middle class? Right now, the highest tax bracket is $400K for a single filer and $450K for joint filers. That's 99.5% and 97%, respectively. Even $200K and $250K, which is what the Dems wanted, is 99% and 93%. Not so close to the middle. And those people aren't taxed at the highest rate on half their income until they make almost a million dollars a year.
>The result is that the speculation economy gets reinforced more and more. Traditional hard work and innovation gets punished, and the only people who will ever make a fortune are the speculators.
You're basically arguing for a lower income tax and a higher capital gains tax. I think I'd take that.
-Z |
