one argument in favor of PK's point is that it rejects the view that
if you tax the rich they'll suddenly start pouting and take their ball
and go home in a big way (international capital flight). But Clinton
raised taxes on the rich during the 1990s, a period when the US
economy was (almost?) as globalized as it is now. In fact what
happened is capital inflow to the US. And the US is still a safe haven
for capital (as shown by the fact that, off and on, some financiers
have willing to accept negative returns from holding T-bills). The US
government could reap a fee in return for being such a safe haven. Of
course, that's not likely to happen, politics being what it is. Obama
doesn't seem to have even considered a financial transactions tax...
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
