Originally Posted By: Wolfgang

Originally Posted By: sinij
"Taxing until the top reverses" does not mean "everyone to earn the same" in any definition or interpretation of these words. If you are going to have debates with imaginary voices in your head, please keep me out of the conversation.


But you didn't not clarify that, so I was left to assume it to be that way. Maybe you should clarify things just to keep confusion out of the way.



I very clearly stated "keep raising taxes on the rich until trend of accumulation of wealth at the top reverses". "Keep raising taxes" means gradually increase them, why gradually? Because there is no way of knowing specific number when this happens. This is also why I can't just give you some number, and call it "fair level of tax". "Trend of accumulation of wealth at the top" refers to income distribution (see: The Graph I discussed with Derid) that tends to get channeled to already rich people.

We now have top-heavy wealth distribution that hasn't been seen since before great depression - in simple words "very few very very rich folks" are out there doing well and everyone else isn't doing so hot, better situation would be "some very rich folks" where more people are better off. Again, we want more rich people but not quite as rich and not at a cost of shrinking middle class.

If you want to get more rich people, instead of making existing rich people even richer, you have to raise taxes on the very top earners. Yes, this in effect penalizes extreme success, but you can argue that difference between 'success' and 'extreme success' are levels of excess.

Last edited by sinij; 12/08/11 10:41 PM.
[Linked Image]