View Single Post
Old 10-08-2019, 01:07 PM   #7352 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,445

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - CBR600 - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - Dodge/Cummins - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)

Model Y - '24 Tesla Y LR AWD
Thanks: 4,209
Thanked 4,388 Times in 3,362 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
Social Democracy needs tax reform in order to fund the big projects that will carry us forward.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-wealthy.html
Garbage article. Not sure how the author got through even an economics 101 course despite claiming expertise.

It starts out with an untrue statement that wouldn't fool anyone:
Quote:
For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.
I'm to believe that people with no income pay a higher percent in total tax than the rich? The poorest actually get money back (earned income tax, which is a misnomer) from the federal government regardless if they paid anything at all. At the local level, many programs exist such as subsidized healthcare and food stamps, which are another form of "negative tax rate".

Then the article says we could tax the very wealthy at 60%, and they would just accept that rather than move to another country.

With the money it says we could fund pre-K, which all research has shown gives no long term benefit for academic or economic performance. It's also not the purview of the federal government to fund "clean energy" unless it's in the form of providing financing to a project that will be of substantial benefit, but with a payback period too long for traditional financing schemes.

Finally, the author says corporate taxes need to be higher, which is the opposite of what 95% of economists recommend. Corporate taxes should be nearer to zero.

The article got 1 fact correct, but completely missed what the problem is even though they explicitly stated it; that there are many tax loopholes available to the wealthy and well-informed. If that's the problem, then why go about fixing it by increasing tax rates? Eliminate the loopholes! I've said many times that there should just be a federal sales tax and eliminate all deductions. You make it progressive by not taxing staple food items, health insurance/care up to a certain dollar amount, and housing costs up to a certain amount.

Of course, that shuts down 95% of the special interest opportunity that the weasels in Washington use to enhance their personal and political lives, so that will never happen.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
 
The Following User Says Thank You to redpoint5 For This Useful Post:
roosterk0031 (10-08-2019)