What many of today's Democrats don't seem to understand is that the rule applies just as much to taxes on wealth itself as to taxes on, say, cigarettes or alcohol.
Progressive California state legislators recently proposed an extreme tax that would even follow residents who flee the state with their assets: a 0.4 percent annual tax not on income, but on wealth itself, applied to all Californians with assets totaling $30 million or more.
A February poll by The Hill found that a whopping 85 percent of Democrats support imposing wealth taxes on the rich.
"The fortunes of the richest Americans are mainly socially beneficial business assets that create jobs and income, not private consumption assets. Raising taxes on wealth would boomerang against average workers by undermining their productivity and wage growth."
The latest evidence comes courtesy of two Rice University economists, who in a new paper studied the effects of something along the lines of Warren's proposals: a tax of 2 percent on household wealth above $50 million and 6 percent on household wealth of $1 billion or higher.
The economists did find that the wealth tax would hurt America's wealthiest 1 percent, which would of course be the whole point.
If the research of economists at Rice and elsewhere weren't convincing enough, there'd also be the empirical evidence from countries where wealth taxes have already been tried.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/progressive-wealth-taxes-hurt-average-americans/
No comments:
Post a Comment