I guess executives didn't exactly shovel those enormous tax cuts into investing in their employees and the growth of their companies...
Last month marked worst October for layoffs in more than 20 years
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/last-month-marked-worst-october-for-layoffs-in-more-than-20-years-challenger-132320043.html
Tax Fairness is a major pillar of Economic Justice...
https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/115504644361900722
Absolutely. Increasing top marginal tax rates, especially on investment income is something I've been on since at least 2002 when I read the article Wealth Happens (https://hbr.org/2002/04/wealth-happens) in the Harvard Business Review.
"The model confirms the assumption that income taxes will tend to erode differences in wealth, as long as those taxes are redistributed to the society in a more or less equal way. After all, taxation represents the artificial addition of some extra ...
transactional links into the network, along which wealth can flow from the rich toward the poor. Similarly, a rise in capital gains taxes will also tend to ameliorate wealth disparities, both by discouraging speculation and by decreasing the returns from it."
The converse of course is also true. Cutting those taxes exacerbates wealth inequality, increasing wealth consolidation just as we have seen.
Have always thought of it as money that gets sidelined into huge reserves of capital ceases to circulate, so the effective economy shrinks, and can support less generation of wealth.
Higher taxes on the rich force more of this capital back into productive circulation, enlarging the effective economy.
I suspect that is also true. Maybe feeding asset bubbles as well.
@joeinwynnewood @mastodonmigration higher taxes on the rich works well theoretically, but without meaninful reform of the tax code top to bottom, the rich will continue to evade their share thru loopholes, tax shelters, offshore accounts, shell corporations, special purpose entities, etc. Ditto for corporate taxes. Just changing the marginal rates is not enough.
Good point.