Pete Mooney, thank you so much for responding to my essay. (Thank you, Valley Reporter, for providing a forum). It seems that we agree on much. Taxation is a means to affect economic and social behavior. It seems that you agree that giving all our money to the hugely rich (Reaganomics) is an ill-informed way to create social wealth.
Where you misunderstand is that I wasn’t focused on income tax alone, although that is part of it. We agree, I think, that for the very rich, income from actual work is a small amount of their and their family’s intergenerational wealth. Their wealth comes from investment and financial manipulation which is not available to most people who work for wages or from small businesses (farmers, builders, restaurateurs, et. al.).
That was the reason I mentioned “the Prosper Act (H.794)”. While it is still in its formative stages, we’re talking about income earners above $250,000 and a bit more for earners above $500,000. That’s income taxes. It would impose a wealth transfer tax of 4% on net investment incomes of estates and trusts for the very wealthy. While I think we agree that property taxes on middle- and working-class owner-occupied homes have reached their limits, property taxes would be increased on luxury and second-homes. Some countries in northern Europe don’t even allow their citizens to own more than one home. (Bernie, take notice. Your “camp” is a second home.)
Taxing the rich is not punitive or cynical. It’s the opposite. Taxing the rich is a statement of knowing we can do better and grow the pie. Do you really think that education and health are not productive enterprises for a humane society? Because this bill would target the additional $400 million revenue annually on schools and universal health care. It’s time to tax the rich.
Robin Lehman, Warren
You might also like
