Raghu, When you say that the US has effectively a flat tax system, are you thinking of flat in percent of income or flat in terms of dollars?
Re your last paragraph, the money comes from a redefinition of who benefits from the assets. A carbon tax, for example, doesn't require an investment but simply says "We all, in common, "own" the atmosphere and you must pay each of us when you dump into it. (That's an example, not an endorsement of a carbon tax.) Gene On May 26, 2015, at 1:14 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Most of the extant proposals for a BIG are to be funded out of the Federal > budget -- and who would pay the taxes seems now tilted to the middle class > rather than the affluent. > > If you consider the nominal tax rates, the exemptions, deductions and > evasions and also state and local taxes, the data I have seen suggests that > overall the US has effectively a flat tax system, which makes it very > regressive in practice. > > Still, I am not sure how much this matters given that the marginal taxpayer > in the US right now who likely pays the extra dollar of taxes is the People's > Republic of China. > > > > I interpret the proposals as based on the idea that "We have a good thing > going, a roaring party with income for the 10%, lets keep it going by giving > money to those who might express their resentment in untoward ways." > > So what? If the elites can be steered in the right direction for their own > "self-interest" (whatever that means), that's great, isn't it? > > > > The proposals that dominate are not intended to redistribute income, as I > interpret them, but rather to keep the peace. As such they deflect analysis > away from competing ways of redistributing income, which makes them, IMO, > right wing. > > The problem with this kind of argument is it can be used against any > progressive policy. You can always find someone who says it is just not > progressive enough! > > This is not to say there is not a valid case to be made against the BIG. We > just need a more sophisticated analysis than the above to make such a case. > > > > There is a separate category, not a right wing idea -- for example the > Alaska Permanent Fund -- which doesn't come from tax receipts and is a > dividend rather than a welfare payment. Peter Barnes is advocating that the > receipts from the commons be paid as dividends to individuals. > > Is that really that different from a BIG? Does it matter whether the money > comes from investment returns or from tax receipts? Didn't the investment > money come from taxes of some kind in the first place? > > -raghu. > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
