This sounds like the "pie" explanation: "that the rich get rich by taking money from the poor." There are at least five million millionaires in the U.S. There are at least five hundred billionaires in the U.S. Do you believe that this quantity of wealth was somehow extracted from "the poor"?
I suspect that a large portion of the wealthy's new money is magicked out of thin air by bank loans; however, if the very wealthy are paying less of the tax take now than they were before, then obviously the less wealthy are taking up the slack. The govt isn't spending less accordingly. :-)
False dichotomy - no reason that both things can't be true. Have you ever looked at income tax rates, historically? Tax rates on the very wealthy's upper income bracket have fallen hugely since the 1960's. That is money effectively extracted from the poor and given to the rich. It's not the only way the rich have gotten richer, but it IS a huge factor in the poor getting poorer. [edit] There is also the expansion of sales taxes as a revenue stream - these taxes hit the poor much harder than they hit the rich, simply because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income.
I agree, and I think Graham does too: The trillions of dollars in wealth now held by the wealthy was created by someone sometime in the past. The familiar examples of wealth are those who created value for many people, like Bill Gates' software, the Waltons' affordable products, or Lady Gaga's music. No doubt tax law plays a part, but even a 90% marginal tax would not reduce them to everyday levels of affluence. Yes, b_b and I discussed it. no reason that both things can't be true
In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others.
Have you ever looked at income tax rates, historically?
Personally, I think increasing taxation is attacking the symptom, not the disease. I think the disease can be better tackled by directly strengthening the position of the poor, for example by strengthening unions. I absolutely think the wealthy should be taxed appropriately, and they're not now. But, say a wealthy person make a billion a year today. Tax them at 90%, and what do they do? They re-work the system to make a trillion a year, and purchase laws to get that tax money spent on contracts with their companies. Like metastatic cancer. Empowering unions and labour strengthens the lower class. Building infrastructure strengthens the lower class. Reducing the ability to purchase laws—lobbying, election funding, et cetera—strengthens the lower class. Taxation sounds good in campaign promises, but I'm not convinced it has meaningful, long-term impact on the lower class and standard-of-living.even a 90% marginal tax would not reduce them to everyday levels of affluence.
A nice trip down hubski memory lane. If there's anything I'm supportive of the GOP candidates for president on, it's that most of them would like to eliminate the payroll tax. I'm not smart enough to know what a good marginal rate structure is, but I'm damn sure that the payroll tax is pernicious. I'm continually amazed that there isn't bipartisan support for abolishing it. I suppose that's probably because no one can agree on how to replace the revenue, which would be imperative, considering the numbers involved.