This would be a bad policy. In fact it is proven to be bad policy. India did it just this way for decades after achieving independence from British rule - tax the wealthiest citizens very heavily and regulate business strongly so as to increase revenues from that source. It kept India poor. It wasn't until they changed this and decreased both government regulation of businesses and heavy taxation of their wealthiest citizens that they began to turn their economy around.NapoleonGH wrote:If i were to support any form of tax change, i would say tax the rich more, and reduce the taxation of the middle class. It is the middle and upper middle class who are the largest and most constant consumers in our markets for the majority of products, by giving them more capital, they will be able to buy more, giving companies more money, thus giving the rich enough money to afford increased taxes. I call this the "trickle up" effect.
The same thing has happened in numerous third world countries - harsh and confiscatory taxation programs result in a poor economy. They stay third world countries because their economic policies create poverty, not wealth.
People work to improve their lot in life. If you tax the shit out of successful people, you take away the incentive for people to make themselves successful. When people lose the incentive to make themselves successful, they stop being productive and the economy suffers.
What you are advocating is a socialist-style redistribution of wealth scheme. It won't work any better than it has anywhere else it's already been tried. You'd think the fall of communism, and the degree to which non-communist, socialist economies have been forces to roll back their socialist programs would tell people something. It never ceases to amaze me how impervious some people are to the lessons of history.
