I didn't make any claim about how much the rich actually pay when the tax rate is 70%. My point is that we've had a high tax rate on the rich in the past and it wasn't a problem.
Actually, they are. I've directly said that those who work full-time should be able to afford the basics. And yet it's difficult to afford rent on a minimum wage job.
"You would have to earn $17.14 an hour, on average, to be able to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment without having to spend more than 30 percent of your income on housing, a common budgeting standard. Make that $21.21 for a two-bedroom home -- nearly three times the federal minimum wage of $7.25."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2149b422d933
So whatever benefit is being produced for the working poor by how the wealthy use their money, it's not nearly enough.
I have expressed no desire to financially help those who are able-bodied but just refuse to get a job. But something needs to be done to help the working poor and progressive taxation would indeed be a step in the right direction.
Not really. While doing that would help achieve the goal of helping the working poor, that does not need to be the method of doing it. So a direct redistribution does not sum up my position. Helping the working poor so they can afford to pay rent, buy food, and afford health care would sum up my position.
I understand that it's easier for you to attack a straw-man position that you have forwarded instead of my actual position but I've clearly forwarded the moral premise that the working poor should be able to afford the basics numerous times on this threads so that is the position that you will have to address if you want to address my position.
I don't know what the best formula is but the current situation does't work, given my goal.
But given my goal, a wealth tax is a good idea. If there's a better idea that we should do instead, then I'd be for that instead. But I'd rather have a wealth tax than maintain the status quo.
Bookmarks