Question for Democrats

How does their alleged reduction of income inequality compare to to the reductions in inequality provided by more progressive forms of taxation?

thanks for the link ...

"This result suggests that, while all earners appear to benefit from a corporate tax cut, the relation between tax cuts and inequality is positive, in part, because high income individuals shift their compensation to reduce taxes."

so maybe we are both right.....at least from the summary statement, ALL earners benefit from a reduction in corporate tax rates, but income inequality gets worse because high income people shift their behavior....

So it follows that if lower corporate taxes benefit ALL workers, then higher corporate taxes would HURT all workers, but maybe hurt the lower income workers less .

So the conclusion is : Raising the corporate tax rates is a good thing because even though it will hurt everyone, the good thing is it will hurt the rich more and reduce income inequality...Thank you for clearing this up

I provided a link. Did you miss it?

yes; thanks

I arguing against my own interest. I am software engineer... and I have done pretty well. Part of this is because I have skills that are in demand now. Part of this is blind luck for example I was given stock options but an employer that I didn't think twice about that ended up being worth a large amount of money through very little of my own effort.

I want my taxes to go up. I work for a corporation. I believe that my employer should pay higher taxes.

If you are making less than $100,000 a year, then corporate taxes almost certainly mean more money in your pocket (and less in the pockets of people who make more than $250,000 and have hundred of thousands of dollars to invest in the stock market).

I believe my taxes should go up. If you make less then $100,000 and think corporate taxes are bad... then I guess you want your taxes to go up too.

well, I think this thread is done ...I think we might agree that if corporate taxes go up, everybody gets hurt, but the rich get hurt more.

And no, I want almost ALL taxes to go down. Gov't is bloated.......(but now we risk going off on too big of a tangent which is a pointless one )

(I'm not sure how you conclude that if corporate taxes go up, that means more money in your pocket if making less than 100k - was that in the study ?)

No. We don't agree.

Money raised by corporate taxes helps middle class Americans. The money for roads, and schools and our military has to come from somewhere.

As I have said, I believe that my taxes should go up. I believe that if your income is less than $100,000 your taxes should go down.

we are going in circles......the money that the corporations pay in taxes comes from their customers and employees; corporations cant print money....Yes, the money comes from somewhere - it's coming from the people who buy their products and/or work for them

The study you sent me a link to concludes that if corporate taxes are lowered, EVERYBODY is a winner, but the rich win better.....It does not conclude that if cooperate taxes are raised that anybody is better off; it merely concludes income inequality is reduced.....

But, I am going to leave it at that and I do appreciate your pointing out the income inequality aspect of corporate taxes

Not if you keep responding

I doubt that corporate taxes reduce income inequality as much as more progressive forms of taxation do.

I agree. If the taxation causes a price increase, though, it will have some effect as a rationing device. Raise gasoline taxes enough, and many of us will find less reason to drive. There used to be a 25% tariff on imported tires. Gotta have 'em, but we can surely let them get a bit thinner before replacement.

Roger, are you in favor of taxing income?

Yes. It's either that, or taxing wealth. I do expect it to be progressive. I guess there's also a possibility of a head tax at a flat rate per person, but that would be crushing for all but the most wealthy.

There are plenty of other options.

For example you can have a progressive sales tax, where food, basic clothing etc. are exempt, but luxury cars, jewelry and houses over a certain value are heavily taxes.

An income tax isn't the only progressive option.

All that does is make people avoid those products. It's not really a good example of progressive taxation.

A progressive expenditure tax would do it much better. It's just complicated to implement.



Once again, what do you want to base taxes on instead? Consumption? Overall net worth?

So you don't want to put taxes on luxury cars for fear that people will buy fewer of them...

But you want to tax work? How does that make any sense.

You could also change tax law pertaining to dividend income and most capital gains. By most capital gains, I mean those coming from appreciated financial assets. I would exclude all or most capital gains from sale of property.

Not necessarily. I'm open to having a progressive expenditure tax if it can be made to work. Historically though expenditure taxes have been hard to implement.

I'm also fine with Elizabeth Warren's idea of taxing net worth.

Maybe, but a lot of net worth results from stock appreciation. Do you tax it as of year end? What happens the following year, when the bottom falls (maybe) out? Give all the tax money back?

I'd favor a luxury tax. We have a sin tax, so why not?

Would have to have some loopholes. Like first home vs third home, Pontiac vs Porsche, etc..