• RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    At higher marginal rates we see larger amounts of avoidance, evasion, and fraud. In 1983 the US cut their top tax rate and took in more tax revenue than they had under the previous higher rates.

    This worked once. There is no reason to believe that further cuts would produce similar results. There are other things we should be doing to pursue greater income equality such as funding the IRS fully.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Instead of cutting it they could have just enforced it.

      Plus the odds are fairly high that a significant number of wealthy people complied after the cuts as a tradeoff of good will from the masses for future cuts. If it hadn’t worked out, they could have just gone back to cheating the system harder than they currently do.

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Nah, it’s easier and less risky to not have to park ypur money in theoretically less stable nations with looser banking rules than to have it parked here. We might be too low but there’s no math supporting going back to 70+%.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      I feel like if we had spent the money lost to tax cuts on enforcing existing laws, like really throw the book at tax cheats, like put them in orange jumpsuits and make them rot in a cell, we’d have had better outcomes.

      The ultra rich should be afraid.