| I'm 100% on board with the idea that the wealth divide is an enormous problem. I don't think it's Bill's fault, or even that he benefits from it in any meaningful way. And I don't think that you and I are the victims. I think we need to be more clear about this. It's not that Bill's (marginal) tax rate is lower than ours. It's that Bill has more and different types of income than we do. Bill has the types of income that are net beneficial to encourage -- which we do by reducing tax liability on it. But I think it's more correct to say that Bill contributes more to our lifestyles than we do to his. And that we want Bill to contribute more still. Not because we need more tax revenue (we don't really), or because of a lifeless theory about non-progressive taxation being more proper (it's so much more complicated than that). But simply because we're all of a society, and that society is unhealthy when wealth is concentrated too densely. It's not about fair share. It's about limiting inequality. That's the end goal, so let's address it directly. A flat tax does not do that. People like Bill Gates should be heroes, for contributing progressively more to society with every success they achieve. (Aside: That was painful to write. Bill himself will always be an evil monopolist who held computing back by 20 years and taught people to believe that computers are scary and unreliable) But where does that new tax revenue go? Into the maw of the US government, where it is used for important things, often very inefficiently. Bill & Warren & Charlie (RIP) think they can do it better. And they might be right, honestly. They're creating an super-national voluntary self-taxation regime, and a corresponding appropriations framework to go along with it, out of the gross excess of their inadequately-taxed earnings. I think that's more than either of us are doing. Even if their projects fail, they will not be obviously less-effective than the same funds as additional tax revenue. :) |