Comment by westurner
10 days ago
I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive.
I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all.
I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability.
I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal.
I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals.
You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher.
You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example.
In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding.
Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for).
Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality:
> "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S > "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" 2 comments westurner Reply
Yeah, I mean, I think we agree on most points.
I think there’s too many confounding economic factors to look at GINI alone and conclude the 1980 turning point was caused by nerfing the top income tax bracket. But a compelling argument could probably be made with more supporting data, which of course this margin is too narrow to contain and etc.
Which factors confound? Oil price shock hostage situation and recession and then wars by oil people who did not pay their bill by cutting taxes and increasing expenses to meddle without just returns.