Quote from: odolvlobo on November 22, 2014, 08:12:33 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 06:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 05:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 03:50:08 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 10:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is cut and dry. Trickle down economics works exactly as common sense says it would, reducing the taxes on the rich leads to the rich being richer, and no one else. We tried it here in the US in the 80s for many years. We tried it again just recently. Exactly as you would expect, reducing taxes on the rich results in the rich being more rich. None of that wealth ever "trickles down" because they simply pocket it. The idea that you are taxing the "most efficient producers" is fallacious because it assumes the rich are rich because they are the most efficient producers. In reality, with the exception of a few rare, lucky cases, the overwhelming majority of the rich are no different then anyone else except that their parents were rich. Quite the opposite, the people at the top generally speaking don't actually produce anything at all, but rather use their power and position to siphon wealth off from the actual workers who actually create wealth.