Up for a little meta-discussion of tax policy? I thought so…

March 31st, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Over at WaPo.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments in reply to "Up for a little meta-discussion of tax policy? I thought so…"

  1. Fred Donaldson says:

    Easiest solution to pay for new spending is 123 Plan: https://goo.gl/UsQLHV

    Only angers (slightly) three guys and balance the new expenses with new revenue, instead of a thousand cuts. Patriotic duty starts at the checkbook if that is your claim to fame. Framed certificates would also be warranted.

    • Smith says:

      The 3 in the 1-2-3 plan will either give all their money away (the stated plan of 2 out of 3, less maybe a billion for family, a token amount for them) or face a 40% estate tax. In a few generations, the wealthy can be diluted. .6 * .6 * .6 * .6 = .12 Great grand children are left with 1/10 of the original fortune to divide.

      However the Republicans want to eliminate the tax. Be aware of this, Democrats, on the repeal of the estate tax, should fight to the death (unless we want much greater inequality than we have now, and more like Trump)

  2. Smith says:

    You really sound more like a Republican. American tax rates are low compared to large western democracies and when you say corporate rates are among the highest, I’m thinking that’s a good thing. If this the opinion of an influential progressive liberal Democrat, then we’re really in trouble. Are large corporations that make billions of dollars and run our lives, get bailed out after breaking the law and destroying the global economy (the banks) or destroying the environment (the auto companies, the oil companies) while enjoying record profits really in need of relief.
    Lower the rates and broaden the base was the same lie we got from Bill Bradley and Tip O’Neil in 1986. Guess what? The rates stayed low while the base narrowed, not hard to do or anticipate.
    The way to close loopholes is to close loopholes, not give away the store. The way to deal with Republicans is to win elections. You can’t do that unless you actually stand for something. Ask Hillary Clinton about that.

  3. MarkerZero says:

    Refer to Amartya Sen on Adam Smith, The economist manifesto


    “Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of ‘two distinct objects’: ‘first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services’. He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted.”