One aspect to which you are obviously oblivious is that taxes that are originally justified as being For The Rich, end up being moved down to the middle and working classes. There aren't enough Rich To Soak to cover Big Government's aspirations.
Really? Prove that, no economist agrees including Smith.
What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm
"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."
UBI and the Flat Tax
================================================
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
Last edited: