Quote by MorePleasin
There's something off when the richest guy makes $1000 for a fart's worth of time, and is not willing to pay a little extra via a reasonable progressive income tax. How many problems could be addressed if the ultra-rich would hand over at least 50% of their annual income as they once did (from about 1915 up to the early 80's). They would still be the richest, having many millions in after-tax income. That money might help everyone to be a little less grumpy, a little more comfortable, a little more invested in solving problems and learning new things ... .like the way it was, at a time most conservatives dream about returning to.
Totally agree that income inequality has become ridiculous for CEO's, athletes, etc. While "conservatives" might wish to return to a time when the income inequality gap was not quite so wide, in day to day reality Republicans typically legislate for lower corporate taxes (Trump), tax breaks for the rich (Trump again) and I would argue either protect the status quo or block attempts to fix it (e.g. student loan forgiveness.) I don't think the Dems are blameless either but what do you expect when US elections are bought and paid for by the excessively rich?
In Canada a luxury tax is being imposed on big ticket items (e.g. corporate jets) but the revenues are not huge given the volumes are low. It appalls me that G7 nations don't all have progressive tax regimes, as OP notes: the rich will still be rich.
