Tweet
So, this seems to be the hot new issue ... "spreading the wealth around" through tax policy. I spoke to this in the tax thread but wanted to bring it up here.
As I stated, we have ALWAYS used tax policy and other mechanisms to address poverty and other social issues. If you do this too much, it creates problems, including creating a dis-incentive for both the poor (receiving more than their share) and the rich (losing too much of their share). However, there is nothing new or inherently wrong or unfair about using taxes as an instrument of public policy.
Several people have complained about the "bottom 50 %" not paying their share, or even getting money back in the form of the EITC. It is strange to me that people find this so abhorrent to people who didn't complain when Bush's tax cuts did the polar opposite - vastly benefitting the top 1 %, out of all proportion to their wealth, income, or the taxes that they paid at the time.
I think a lot of us simply don't realize or believe that there is still poverty in this country, and that charity alone doesn't address it. Do some poor people deserve it by being lazy and just need to work harder (per AM talk radio this morning)? Sure. Does a civilized society have some responsibility to the poorest and weakest among us? Absolutely.
The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.
source:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm
As I stated, we have ALWAYS used tax policy and other mechanisms to address poverty and other social issues. If you do this too much, it creates problems, including creating a dis-incentive for both the poor (receiving more than their share) and the rich (losing too much of their share). However, there is nothing new or inherently wrong or unfair about using taxes as an instrument of public policy.
Several people have complained about the "bottom 50 %" not paying their share, or even getting money back in the form of the EITC. It is strange to me that people find this so abhorrent to people who didn't complain when Bush's tax cuts did the polar opposite - vastly benefitting the top 1 %, out of all proportion to their wealth, income, or the taxes that they paid at the time.
I think a lot of us simply don't realize or believe that there is still poverty in this country, and that charity alone doesn't address it. Do some poor people deserve it by being lazy and just need to work harder (per AM talk radio this morning)? Sure. Does a civilized society have some responsibility to the poorest and weakest among us? Absolutely.
The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.
source:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm
Comment