|
Sure, we both agree on most everything you just said there, but that has nothing to do with the specific complaints I brought up about that article.
1. There isn't evidence that the super wealthy pay a lower tax rate than "any other income group". That isn't to say that there is no problem, only that you need to start with truthful facts to elaborate a solution.
2. The article doesn't mention how we'll keep the super wealthy once they are taxed their fair share. Perhaps they will stay because they have deep roots in the US, but more likely they will find ways to hide their assets, as many countries don't have a duty to report them back to the US.
3. What to do with the newfound "public" money isn't thought out at all. You don't take others money first and figure out why you took it later. Pre-k has shown in multiple studies to have zero long-term benefit, so just listing a political wishlist of things to do with other people's money isn't engaging in critical thinking.
4. No respectable economists suggests higher corporate taxes because they all know that reduces domestic jobs and the size of the economy, which hurts everyone across all strata of the economic distribution. Throwing this idea in the mix of the other terrible ideas just shows allegiance to a political agenda rather than a demonstration of economic chops, or a thought out solution to a problem.
5. Why avoid the stated issue altogether; that the wealthy have ways to avoid paying taxes that others either aren't able to take advantage of, or aren't aware that exist? Fixing the problem sounds easier than implementing a political wish list that may/may not address some of the symptoms of the problem.
|