patrick.net

>You can change the tax rates to anything you want but it isn’t going to make a difference as long as there are tax shelters and other “perks” to the wealthiest people.

When people say this does this mean (1) they agree that some wealth redistribution is needed (to bring back equality of opportunity) but it's just that the tax rates won't bring it about.

or

(2) It is OK to continue on this route until a "Monopoly" like end is reached (often followed by a revolution).

American in Japan says

When people say this does this mean (1) they agree that some wealth redistribution is needed (to bruing back equaliy of opportunity) but it’s just that the tax rates won’t bring it about.

or

(2) It is OK to continue on this route until a “Monopoly” like end is reached (often followed by a revolution).

Can't speak for everyone - but I'm in the #1 camp though I'm not sure I would characterize it as "wealth redistribution" - more like paying in an equitable percentage. So, it is my assertion that fiddling with the rate doesn't amount to much if the underlying rules (deductions and different tax characteristics of "income") don't change.

In other words, what the hell does it matter if the rate goes to 90% if I can call my "income" a dividend or capital gain and keep paying the cheaper rate.

Beyond that, influence peddling by/to special interest creates "you win and you lose" scenarios within the tax code. Taxes (in my opinion) should be designed to generate needed revenue to operate the government - not to engineer winners and losers based on who people know or how much money is pumped into a politicians pocket or their voters.

EightBall says

Beyond that, influence peddling by/to special interest creates “you win and you lose” scenarios within the tax code. Taxes (in my opinion) should be designed to generate needed revenue to operate the government - not to engineer winners and losers based on who people know or how much money is pumped into a politicians pocket or their voters.

Very well said.