Skip to comments.Taxing Away Inequality
Posted on 03/01/2013 6:01:44 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
Last month, U.C. Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez spoke [See video below] to the Center for Ethics in Society at Stanford University about his pioneering research into global income inequality. A critical question his work raises is whether high taxes on the wealthy can curb inequality. Before his talk, Saez sat down with Stanford sociologist David Grusky to discuss further why taxation, though a blunt instrument, might be the best available solution.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonreview.net ...
Don't forget the UC-Berkeley professor of economics (Christina Romer) spearheaded Obama's failed Community Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Stimulus/Stimulus II/other Keynesian policies.
These academic types keep focusing on the larger and larger "income inequality", but never fail to ask the question of 'government redistribution policies' of the past (how many decades?) did miserably to 'equal' income gap, and their contributing factors to the so-called inequality itself. .
Talking about we need new 'out side the box' thinking in our academic. In their conclusions, it is always one solution - More and Higher Taxes needed.
I am VERY WEARY about what they promote -
“There has to be a dramatic historical event that allows a country to shift gears and change its tax policy.”
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Especially National Socialists like those Democrat Party and many in the Republican Party.
4) Public will favor more progressive taxation only if it is convinced that top income gains are detrimental to the 99%
And it is clear that it is the academics' absolute duty to teach that to the 99%.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. - Alexander Frazer Tytler
The cause of the income gap between the 1 percent and 99 percent is not caused by taxes, it is caused by free trade. The execs and CEO, financiers/bankers and etc did not get impacted when labor went global. Workers in factory or hitech can be fired as soon as a lower cost overseas worker is available to replace the American one. That is how capitalism is suppose to work except at the top. There are plenty of Japanese CEO that can work 1/3 the salary of American CEO’s/exec staff except the ones on the top play by another set of rules call facism. The ultimate question I have for all these short sighted greedy CEO’s is who will buy all their products if the working man salary is frozen or reduced by Chinese labor? Worst what will be going thru the minds of the CEO’s as they huddle in their mansions with their family as their personal guards run out of ammo as the angry and poor storm their compounds and ripping their guards apart limb from limb, and the CEO and his family lives are now measured in minutes before it meets a violent end. Was all that short sighted profits at the expense of the American middle class really worth it?
If everyone becomes equally poor, who will step in to provide a safety net for when some take a dive? I can picture this great “equality”, they claim to strive for, resulting in a mass of folks acting like zombies and falling upon the fallen to fill their bellies...
The end goal of the left is to have one world government which takes money from those who produce it and gives it to slackers.
There would be nowhere on earth to hide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.