Taxing Extreme Wealth to Fight Extreme Poverty

[CharonY]

As an interesting side point, it appears that most people in the 1-5 million in investable assets bracket do not consider themselves wealthy (only 28% do). Passing that point, 60% consider themselves wealthy.

 

While Trump is well beyond that point, it would indicate that otherwise wealthy people are probably having a hard time realizing the struggle of the working poor. After all, if they do not consider themselves wealthy, what category would the middle and working class fall into?

[iNow]

In related news:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/rich-yorkers-state-raise-taxes-46267803

Some of the wealthiest New Yorkers are asking the state to raise their taxes.

 

Eighty people including George Soros, Steven Rockefeller and Abigail Disney wrote to lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo saying they and other top earners should pay more to support schools, roads, bridges and programs to help poor and homeless residents of the state.

 

"Now is the time to invest in the long-term economic viability of New York," the letter reads. "We need to invest in pathways out of poverty and up the economic ladder for all of our fellow citizens, including strong public education from pre-K to college. And, we need to invest in the fragile bridges, tunnels, waterlines, public buildings, and roads that we all depend on."

 

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, endorses a plan that would create new, higher income tax brackets for top earners to raise a projected $2 billion.

Edited March 22, 2017 by iNow

[Phi for All]

In related news:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/rich-yorkers-state-raise-taxes-46267803

 

We need to make sure investments like this are used with the same wisdom that makes them possible. Bravo NY!

[Raider5678]

^ good points, MigL!

 

Some of the posters above look at this too one-dimensionally, IMO. Assume for a moment that taxes on the wealthy do increase. Even if evasion takes place or some businesses never start, on net government revenues will still go up in rather significant ways.

 

This would lower the deficit, potentially help us translate our debt into a surplus, and provide funding for massive infrastructure programs, healthcare, education, and all of those progressive focus areas that have proven to have a huge ROI in both the short and long term.

 

Mathematically and economically, the approach is sound. Even if more people hide their cash on foreign islands and fewer people become entrepreneurs, poverty and massive inequality would plummet.

 

The true question here is whether we actually want those things, how this money should be properly spent and intelligently overseen, not whether or not steps should be taken to improve the balance sheet and to enhance the lives of the 99%.

 

The problem is that ideological wedges and derp derp idiocracy-style arguments (practically written in fat crayon on red/blue construction paper while eating paste) have ruled the airwaves for so long that we can't even begin the conversation in a mature way that could find traction and achieve consensus.

Are you suggesting giving the money taxed from the rich to the poor?

Or spending it on things like education, health care, etc?

Because I would support the second one, but not the first one. I'm 99% certain you mean the second one. But I'm clarifying.

[swansont]

Are you suggesting giving the money taxed from the rich to the poor?

Or spending it on things like education, health care, etc?

Because I would support the second one, but not the first one. I'm 99% certain you mean the second one. But I'm clarifying.

 

 

What if they are the same thing? e.g. the taxation for healthcare under the ACA provides subsidies for the poor.

[Raider5678]

 

 

What if they are the same thing? e.g. the taxation for healthcare under the ACA provides subsidies for the poor.

Can't ever be a simply black and white answer....

Oh well. That's reality.

Anyways, I guess I'd still support it as long as not all of it was given away in subsidies.

It would probably help the poor more if they had a better education.

[swansont]

Can't ever be a simply black and white answer....

Oh well. That's reality.

Anyways, I guess I'd still support it as long as not all of it was given away in subsidies.

It would probably help the poor more if they had a better education.

 

 

Don't worry. There will always be huge swaths of taxation that only helps (or disproportionally helps) the richer ones among us.

[iNow]

The choice is not between who helps more or in which direction money flows, but instead is about what values represent us as a people and which of those we want to bolster. IMO, it should be about setting a better lowest common denominator, not about enabling a higher possible maximum.

[Phi for All]

Can't ever be a simply black and white answer....

Oh well. That's reality.

Anyways, I guess I'd still support it as long as not all of it was given away in subsidies.

It would probably help the poor more if they had a better education.

 

Given away in subsidies how? Or are you just objecting to assistance in the form of money to pay rent and buy groceries?

[CharonY]

The choice is not between who helps more or in which direction money flows, but instead is about what values represent us as a people and which of those we want to bolster. IMO, it should be about setting a better lowest common denominator, not about enabling a higher possible maximum.

 

I would argue that you could also apply a utilitarian view on that matter. As a corollary to reducing poverty one could e.g. expect a reduction in crime, which could seen as a societal benefit for everyone, for example. Similar arguments could be made for public health and other matters.