Even a wealth tax isn't enough: It's time for an income tax based on economic inequality

[Wyatt earp]

Another insane childish opinion piece who doesn't want to call it what they want...socialism/communism




Not only is such drastic inequality unfair economically, but it is also destroying our democracy politically. It has led to the rise of a destructive strain of far-right populism that is tearing apart the fabric of our cherished society. This downward spiral will only become worse unless and until financial security is restored to the working class.



So far, the proposed solutions are woefully inadequate. We have heard suggestions such as free college tuition, health care for all, student debt cancellation and two weeks of paid sick leave. These proposals are fine and good, but they are all drastically insufficient. They fail to address the underlying, systemic, free-market forces that are causing inequality in the first place. These proposals are mere Band-Aids. While they do soothe some of the symptoms, they do not cure the underlying disease.

We must fight fire with fire.

A powerful measure that would indeed counteract the destructive market forces at the heart of the problem would be to impose an income tax on income inequality.

The key mechanism would be to link income taxes on the wealthy to the level of inequality in society.

Under this paradigm, inequality in the economy would be measured on a regular basis. Whenever inequality in society becomes too great, such as today, an income tax on the wealthy at the very top would automatically be triggered (no action required from Congress).

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.


More @ Could a special income tax correct for vast inequality?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you think for one minuet that this will not bankrupt the middle class you would be wrong. they will NEVER tax themselves and the elitists.. Best you read the fine print carefully...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not to mention unconstitutional


.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Just hands the government more $$$ to waste.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Another insane childish opinion piece who doesn't want to call it what they want...socialism/communism




Not only is such drastic inequality unfair economically, but it is also destroying our democracy politically. It has led to the rise of a destructive strain of far-right populism that is tearing apart the fabric of our cherished society. This downward spiral will only become worse unless and until financial security is restored to the working class.



So far, the proposed solutions are woefully inadequate. We have heard suggestions such as free college tuition, health care for all, student debt cancellation and two weeks of paid sick leave. These proposals are fine and good, but they are all drastically insufficient. They fail to address the underlying, systemic, free-market forces that are causing inequality in the first place. These proposals are mere Band-Aids. While they do soothe some of the symptoms, they do not cure the underlying disease.

We must fight fire with fire.

A powerful measure that would indeed counteract the destructive market forces at the heart of the problem would be to impose an income tax on income inequality.

The key mechanism would be to link income taxes on the wealthy to the level of inequality in society.

Under this paradigm, inequality in the economy would be measured on a regular basis. Whenever inequality in society becomes too great, such as today, an income tax on the wealthy at the very top would automatically be triggered (no action required from Congress).

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.


More @ Could a special income tax correct for vast inequality?

Counter act the destructive market forces? That’s just stupidity in action right there. The market doesn’t destroy anything and there’s no government that can control it other than destroying an entire nations economy.

 

[wamose]

Didn't they already try soaking the rich in California? They figured on raking in a lot of extra money to redistribute, but so many rich people got smart and moved to Nevada and Texas, where there is no income tax, that California ended up losing tax money. That is the story of how California's Democratic leadership is going to destroy the state.

 

[Thinker101]

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.

WTF, another plan designed to move that socialist indicator. A tax on maybe those at $5 million/year and above, then when they piss more and more of that away they'll eventually adjust to those at $100 thousand/year and above. It maybe 70%, hell it maybe 80%, it maybe 95%. What fricken incentive does it provide for anyone to succeed, it just provides incentive for those with enough money to leave....and guaranteed they will.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just hands the government more $$$ to waste.

Exactly, for some reason I can never figure out the left thinks they will get something out of it by taxing more..

 

[Wyatt earp]

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.

WTF, another plan designed to move that socialist indicator. A tax on maybe those at $5 million/year and above, then when they piss more and more of that away they'll eventually adjust to those at $100 thousand/year and above. It maybe 70%, hell it maybe 80%, it maybe 95%. What fricken incentive does it provide for anyone to succeed, it just provides incentive for those with enough money to leave....and guaranteed they will.

And lifted automatically???


Lol

You know how hard we had to fight to get the Obama care tax/ mandate removed..



.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Another insane childish opinion piece who doesn't want to call it what they want...socialism/communism




Not only is such drastic inequality unfair economically, but it is also destroying our democracy politically. It has led to the rise of a destructive strain of far-right populism that is tearing apart the fabric of our cherished society. This downward spiral will only become worse unless and until financial security is restored to the working class.



So far, the proposed solutions are woefully inadequate. We have heard suggestions such as free college tuition, health care for all, student debt cancellation and two weeks of paid sick leave. These proposals are fine and good, but they are all drastically insufficient. They fail to address the underlying, systemic, free-market forces that are causing inequality in the first place. These proposals are mere Band-Aids. While they do soothe some of the symptoms, they do not cure the underlying disease.

We must fight fire with fire.

A powerful measure that would indeed counteract the destructive market forces at the heart of the problem would be to impose an income tax on income inequality.

The key mechanism would be to link income taxes on the wealthy to the level of inequality in society.

Under this paradigm, inequality in the economy would be measured on a regular basis. Whenever inequality in society becomes too great, such as today, an income tax on the wealthy at the very top would automatically be triggered (no action required from Congress).

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.


More @ Could a special income tax correct for vast inequality?

How to automatically kill the economy tax. (no action required from Congress).

 

[Zorro!]

Another insane childish opinion piece who doesn't want to call it what they want...socialism/communism

Not only is such drastic inequality unfair economically, but it is also destroying our democracy politically. It has led to the rise of a destructive strain of far-right populism that is tearing apart the fabric of our cherished society. This downward spiral will only become worse unless and until financial security is restored to the working class.

So far, the proposed solutions are woefully inadequate. We have heard suggestions such as free college tuition, health care for all, student debt cancellation and two weeks of paid sick leave. These proposals are fine and good, but they are all drastically insufficient. They fail to address the underlying, systemic, free-market forces that are causing inequality in the first place. These proposals are mere Band-Aids. While they do soothe some of the symptoms, they do not cure the underlying disease.

We must fight fire with fire.

A powerful measure that would indeed counteract the destructive market forces at the heart of the problem would be to impose an income tax on income inequality.

The key mechanism would be to link income taxes on the wealthy to the level of inequality in society.

Under this paradigm, inequality in the economy would be measured on a regular basis. Whenever inequality in society becomes too great, such as today, an income tax on the wealthy at the very top would automatically be triggered (no action required from Congress).

The tax would apply only to the highest marginal income tax level, say, maybe $5 million per year and above. No tax would apply to the middle class or anyone else. The tax would be steep. Very steep. Say, maybe, 70%. The tax would remain in effect until the level of inequality in society were reduced to an acceptable level, in which event the tax ,would be lifted automatically.

More @ Could a special income tax correct for vast inequality?

If rising wages for wage earners is what excites you, then rising wages in the Trump economy is welcome news for you!

UNEXPECTEDLY! Rank-and-File Workers Get Bigger Raises.

Wages for rank-and-file workers are rising at the quickest pace in more than a decade, even faster than for bosses, a sign that the labor market has tightened sufficiently to convey bigger increases to lower-paid employees.​

Gains for those workers have accelerated much of this year, a time when the unemployment rate fell to a half-century low. . . .​

Pay for the bottom 25% of wage earners rose 4.5% in November from a year earlier, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Wages for the top 25% of earners rose 2.9%.
​

Right around with Tariffs were kicking in:

Similarly, the Atlanta Fed found wages for low-skilled workers have accelerated since early 2018, and last month matched the pace of high-skill workers for the first time since 2010.​

“A strong labor market makes the bargaining power of lower-paid workers more like the labor market higher-wage workers experience during good times and bad,” Nick Bunker, economist with job search site Indeed.com, said.​

Labor Department data paint a similar picture. Average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers in the private sector were up 3.7% in November from a year earlier—stronger than the 3.1% advance for all employees—implying managers and other nonproduction workers saw a 1.6% wage increase in the past year. The department doesn’t produce separate management pay figures.​

Paul Krugman hardest hit