The case for taxing the most Wealthy
Stephen Alrich Marshall
proposed the hypothesis that, in consideration of the deleterious
effects of wealth inequality, if the most wealthy Vermonters were to
leave the state because taxes were made higher, we who remain would
actually be better off.
I would like to know how this might be tested. Gary - several people
suggested I ask you about this.
I can of course imagine a number of variables, including taxes which
depend upon "residence". Of course, when the deleterious effects of
wealth disparity are taken into account, I don't see why anyone choosing
to live in Vermont part of the year but locate out of state the rest, to
avoid taxes, ought to be treated with any special consideration.
Taxation is only one way to reduce wealth disparity. Taxes can be used
to encourage companies and corporations to share more wealth with
employees, to invest more in environmental remediation, to convert to
worker ownership, and to convert to non-profit organization. Any of
these alternate uses of wealth help to distribute wealth and in the
course of lowering disparity increases the value of the incomes at the
bottom of the scale. My favorite idea: make the tax rate contingent on
some socially relevant criteria, such as the ratio of highest and lowest
incomes, the ratio of profit to total of wages, or the ratio of profit
to capitalization. Lower corporate taxes could be realized by spending
profits on wages, environmental remediation and other social goods.
The key to prosperity under the regimen of low wealth disparity is that
the quality of life is not dependent on actual income, but on the
feelings of security and community we can sustain. As the top earners
are less distant from the bottom earners, the quality of life goes up
less because of increased incomes, and more because our interests in
public education, safety, health, governance, and the solutions to these
problems, all converge, because we tend to converge on shared solutions,
and because the tendency toward a greater sense of a shared fate leads
to greater shared well-being.
This vision of prosperity of course deviates from that which has driven
public policy for the last three decades. On the political right,
"prosperity" is marked by "wealth creation", which, conveniently for the
proponents of this definition, opportunely falls into the hands of the
already wealthy. The alternate definition of prosperity is marked by
attention to the well being of every member of society, of the health of
the environment, and of the Earth. Wealth is a tool, not a goal. It
isn't the size of the pie that matters, it is how fairly, with how much
care, the wealth is made to work for everyone.
The question is, of course, How do we test this proposition?
Stephen Marshall
11 Hungerford Terrace
Burlington Vermont 05401
Dispolemic.Blogspot.Com
802-922-1446