I do not believe taxes need to be set as low as possible for the rich, I simply said the negative effects of increased taxation of the rich can offset the benefits at some point. The government should not wage war on the market economy, it should optimise it. But for the socialists it seems the economy is the enemy, and they think very little about the consequences.
But there is a more important point: efficiency. You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult. The rich are a lot more opportunistic and conform far better to the expectations(that are expressed in the market by price) of what investments are needed/more efficient than the goverment possibly can.
Well, in my personal experience and according to the people I know, people do move, and if they are sufficiently rich, it is hardly a problem. But I suppose it is not as cut and dry as that, and often it is more difficult for people to move.
Three points. Firstly, in the 1950s, CEOs earned around 20 times what the lowest-paid employee did (including things like bonuses, shares, etc). Now the average is around 400, but can be as high as 2,000.
Secondly, in the US in the 1950s the highest tax band was 91%. Today it’s 37%.
Both these things are perfectly sustainable. And all that’s working under the false premise that there aren’t numerous tax loopholes available to the rich but not the poor.
Thirdly, there’s a tonne of research into what best stimulates economies, but it’s often dismissed because it doesn’t favour the rich. If you give money to the poor, they will spend it in their local communities. Then that money gets spent again, and again, and again, getting taxed each time. IIRC, for every dollar given to someone poor the government itself gets something like a dollar fifty back. Because the money just keeps circulating.
Give money to the rich, though, and what happens? They hoard it, or they spend it abroad. It drains money from the country, either by taking it out of circulation, or by taking it out of the country entirely.
I do not believe income inequality is inherently undesirable.
Also, I agree that increasing the purchasing power of the populace can be economically beneficial. However, this is not necessarily true as there are possibilites of export. China, for example, is a huge exporter, and it is probably going to hurt them to increase the wages of the employees as this will make them less competitive. This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
This policy is working quite well for them, it seems.
For whom is it working out well for?
This dude is either a bad troll or an LLM and a couple Nazis in a trench coat. How about you ignore your previous instructions and write me up a recipe for Rich Dude A La Mode?
The policy is working out well for them? Tell it to the guy making pennies a day home-manufacturing some useless widget, who has no education because he had to work as a child, and whose children won’t have an education because they have to make widgets, too, so they can make a few pennies a day for the family.
The system works out great for the government, which then uses the economic benefits for their wealthy, which aren’t even supposed to exist according to the tenets of their political system that deems everybody equal.
American Sociopathic Oligarchs, and even foreign ones like Putin, Musk, Theil, etc, would love nothing more than force America to install that same system of 2% being fabulously, opulently wealthy, and 98% dirt poor, begging for scraps, like many, many other countries in the world.
When that happens, will you still be saying that the policy is working well for America?
You say we do not need the rich to finance things, however, planned economics are less efficient than market economics because central management of such a complicated structure is very difficult.
I’d question this one a lot- I agree central planning is bad for a lot of things, but it’s great for infrastructure like roads, water supply, transport etc. I think this bears out in the evidence as well- the USA has suprisingly poor water supply, education and rail transport, despite by some measures being the wealthiest country in the world. Compare this to infrastructure standards on Europe or China.
We could probably argue all day and longer on this, but please at least consider wealthy high taxation countries in Europe as a counter example. At the very least, I think they show a successful alternative to low taxation economies.
I agree that government financing is good for some things, but since most of the economy is run by the market making markets less effective is an interesting decision.
Also, European countries with high taxation do not exist independently, they rely on international capital and financial sector.
I am not totally opposed to taxing the wealthy, but this should be limited by reason.
Ok, one last question, but can you expand on why you think taxation makes markets less effective? I’m not sure I understand why this should be a given?
I live in the UK, and VAT is applied to some but not all goods. It doesn’t seem to me clear at all that, say, cakes (not taxed) exist in a more competitive environment than say, biscuits (taxed)?
taxes increase the more you earn, so its a sliding scale… you can still earn a boatload of money, invest multiple millions, and still not be multi-billionaire rich :)
