Anonymous #6 11w

Advocates of a progressive tax tend to think that the wealthy should pay more because they “can afford to.” And/or that the buildup of capital in the hands of some wealthy individuals means they are necessarily robbing others. Thus society is served and the well being of “the poor.” Is increased by taxation and redistribution.

1

Anonymous #6 11w

Flat tax advocates tend to think that demanding more from someone just because they worked hard and are successful is unfair. And that society is helped more by economic growth, which is achieved by keeping money in the hands of the people where it is far more productive than in the hands of the government, than by redistribution.

1

That’s true but not a tax problem. Taking more money away from people and companies and placing it in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats hardly reduces corruption. I will say more later but I gotta bounce for a while.

1

Alright I’m back. To your point about wealth concentration I would say that historically even the largest fortunes are typically dissipated over three to four generations, no taxation required. Also the “rich.” grow richer (in cycles) but they aren’t actually the same group of people, the positions at the top are actually a revolving door.

1

And about poor countries. You’re absolutely right that a few people tend to monopolize money and power in them. But that tends to be done by people with ties to the state, not private citizens. People grow powerful before they grow rich, then they use that power to maintain their fortune. Poor countries typically have high nominal taxes and Byzantine regulatory regimes, it’s the people with ties to the government who simply can ignore them.

1

All of these are problems of government not taxation. A country with high and progressive taxes can (and often is) be the home of a multigenerational insular oligarchy who monopolize wealth to themselves. A country with low taxes can be the home of solid elections and free economic movement. The issue is about limiting the power that money provides, not empowering other people to wrench it out of the hands of the people who made it and distribute it as they see fit.

1

I’m not by any stretch a libertarian. I recognize the need for a strong regulatory framework to defend both economic and moral order. I just think that sending men with guns to take more money from people who benefit our society more, then giving that money to another group of people who are within the government to distribute as they see fit is a bad solution. People should keep what they make as much as possible while providing for the maintenance of the common framework via taxation.

1

And stock buybacks are just dividends by a different name. They aren’t some mystical way to circulate money between just rich people. Trickle down (I hate that term by the way.). Isn’t dead. But you’re right that there is a problem with our current economy. People are being squeezed by increasing costs, inflation and spending all at the same time. But taxes won’t fix that. Elongated Muskrat being worth a hundred billion dollars less won’t fix that, not even close.

1