I'm trying to formulate arguments for progressive taxation. Does
anyone have good references to share?
My take is that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from society.
Michael Dell gains much more from roads and educated workers than
does an elementary school teacher, it seems to me, bu
Wednesday night from Governor Davis: "Fifty-one percent ($17.7 billion)
of this [deficit] problem is a reduction in revenues based on
predictions in our current budget. Thirty-six percent ($12.6 billion)
of the problem are the one-time reductions that we used last year to
solve that problem. Twe
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
>
> What is a "progressive tax"?
>
> It is clear that more dollars will flow to the
> high-income folks. (To say nothing of industrial vs residential.)
> But, low income customers pay
I worry about the parenthetical remark at the end of the following. It's
true that these industrial firms may have monopoly power, but in general
doesn't competition encourage businesses to pass the benefits of lower
electricity costs to consumers of electricity in the form of lower prices?
Th
that's well taken, but chances are the
wealth effect is small compared to the
consumer benefit, and even if it wasn't
at worst it would increase inequality by
increasing incomes unevenly, a relatively
abstract concept. the other side will say,
sure dereg is good for everybody, you ingrate.
pol
. . .So, these fellows concluded, the saving as a percentage of income
is
much larger for low income people. They call this the equivalent of a
progressive tax change, though more dollars flow to each high income
customer than to low income customers.
Gene Coyle
Prog
On 18 Feb 97 at 8:46, Nathan Newman wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of truth to that, especially in Western Europe back
> > when social democracy ruled. But here in the US, if I am not
> > mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There's a lot of truth to that, especially in Western Europe back
> when social democracy ruled. But here in the US, if I am not
> mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax
> system coincide with wars.
I don't think this is
In a message dated 97-02-17 13:20:55 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< if I'm not
mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax
system coincide with wars. >>
Moreover, when the first FIT was introduced (c. 1913?) working people wer
generally not taxed because income under $4,
Peter Burns writes: >> The willingness of the population to
accept highly progressive taxation is tied to the range
and quality of public services which they receive in
return. <<
There's a lot of truth to that, especially in Western Europe back
when social democracy ruled
10 matches
Mail list logo
