First Political [Serious] Blog
Real quick post, and then it's back to homework!
Anyways, just read an article about a tax cut for the wealthy; the gradual elimination of the estate tax. Some quick info: the estate tax is only exacted on assets of more than $1.5 million, and just under 20,000 people here in the U.S. are thus affected by it. I won't go into a lot of details about the article (it was an op-ed; I took it with a grain of salt), nor will I claim to be an expert on this issue (which I am not). However, it did get me thinking.
Nowadays, a lot of people compare the U.S. to the Roman Empire, and how the latter's collapse is being mirrored by our country today. On that note, another kingdom popped into my head; France, late 1700's. Here's an interesting little fact; not too long before the French Revolution (say 10, 20, no more than 30 years) occurred, the aristocracy were made exempt from paying taxes. Also, this was right around the time of one of many wars (I apologize for my fuzzy knowledge), so France, which was in debt, started to go deeper into it. Thus, the middle/lower classes were forced to pay higher taxes, and so this was just one of the many causes behind the Revolution. Now yes, this is not 18th-C-monarchy-ruled-France, but still, there's an important message that I think can be applied to today. Anytime a country favors the extreme wealthy during trying economic times, it can't end well.
posted by adam @ 5:09 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Let's just get it over with and do a premptive uprising. You know, rise up before we absolutely have to. Plus, that gets us in on the ground floor(of power that is).
Viva La Revolution!
My misguided friend, you must remember "Trickle Down/Reagan Economics". If you teach a man to fish he can feed himself the rest of his life (let the rich re-invest and create jobs by not overburdening them with taxes), or you can give a man a fish and he'll feed himself for a day (social programs created from heavey taxation).
You also have to remember the example of Classical Athens. Once the poor got power, they created many social programs (juries with 500 people and building projects). It was these social programs that lead to the downfall of this newly created democracy only after 50 years. As long as the Aristocracy are in power, they have their own investments in the city, and will make sure that the city doesn't fail, for if it does, there goes their wealth. The poor on the other hand don't care if their democracy fails, for they haven't a penny invested in the system. Our government, if you will, is based on capitalism, and for that to work, one can't over burden the rich with taxes.
Valid arguments Dusty. However, some things to keep in mind:
I am not calling for more taxes on the wealthy (maybe there should be, but that's not the argument at hand); I'm just saying that CUTTING a tax that only affects the wealthiest people in the country (in this case, about .006% of the population) is not wise. I hardly doubt that even a reasonable a jobs would be created by this. Furthermore, the nation racks in $18 Billion annualy from this; that's nothing to scoff at. Finally, I hardly feel that those people who are influenced by the estate tax are REALLY overburdened ;-)
True, true, but if you do tax these people, where to they get their money from? Most rich people don't have all their money sitting around in liquid forms (aka cash, checking etc.). It's all invested and if you tax them they have to pull their investments. These investments is what keeps companies going to pay the bills (aka workers wages).
But I realize that both of us are posing a simplistic outlook for a complex problem
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Daniel said...[or rather used crude language; this is the PG version as I am not a fan of vulgarity on my blog unless it's coming from me]
Reagonomics = Screw You-Nomics
Frequently, the highest 1% in income will leave their money in trust funds and other tax hedges that do not contribute to the economy. Secondly, that same group are much likely to buy niche products (which general do not contribute much to the economy) and invest in overseas markets.
Secondly, and more importantly, while supply-side economics may make an economy more efficient (I will not concede this except for the sake of arguement, compare economy from 1981-88 and 1993-2000), it is morally abhorrent. Leaving people who are in poverty, many of whom are there not of their own accord, need help to even get by and Reagonomics basically says: "Screw you, this will make us more money." (hence my title) In order to "teach a man to fish" you need "socialistic" policies like well funded education and grants, child care support, and medical support.
Damn you censors.....
Post a Comment
<< Home