Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
Economics is about supply, demand, and allocation of resources. Maybe that all boils down to "efficiency," but I think it is more complex than just that.
In any event, "all the purchasing power" of the United States is not "in the hands of less than 1000 people."
But more to the point of my comment: Sanders can go to the "tax the rich" well as much as he wants, but the "rich" (whomever they might be) will likely end up simply allocating their resources (money, time, whatever) in such a way that will reduce the taxes to be collected, leaving Sanders (and many of his supporters) with little more than a dry hole in the ground.
Besides, Sanders is a one-man band. Some of his ideas may have merit. But the chance of him getting even 10% of his ideas through Congress (in its current make-up) is infinitesimal. He may move the needle as he plays his tune, but the record isn't being flipped.
|
I think if the U.S. decided to increase taxes, both personal and business, provided it was done gradually, it would be fairly easy to do without massive capital outflow, it's not like taxes are cheaper elsewhere.
The reality is it's the U.S. that's been the big downward force on taxes with their absurd attachment to trickle down economics. it's true you move money easily but you need to move it to somewhere you can do business in, the U.S. is a huge market that few industries can turn their back on.