in the US case, a majority of the vote of the elected representatives.
Perhaps politicians are in hock to money everywhere, but nowhere more than in the States, where you can hardly get elected to anything unless you have a private fortune or a fortune to back you.
When you talk about a majority, let's be clear that it's first and foremost a majority among those who are the wealthiest in the nation (and of those who owe their political position to them), in other words those who have a clear interest in the matter.
As for being hot to raise the marginal rate, whether in France or the US, I think mostly people are not convinced by your view of the essential dynamic role played in the economy by a tiny minority of the extremely wealthy. We've heard this before, we hear it all the time, and we're just not looking at things from the same side of the board.
mostly people are not convinced by your view of the essential dynamic role played in the economy by a tiny minority of the extremely wealthy
Maybe to back this point up a little more, if the objective was to make the wealthy pay more tax, I would support a wealth tax. (and of course I already support the reimposition of the so-called death tax.) imho, passing down billion dollar fortunes like the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, the Forbes,,,is not really consistent with the principles of the US. So with the addition of a wealth tax to get the extra tax dollars, a tax that is even more targeted at the wealth group you think should be paying more taxes, and doesn't have the economic disincentives of high marginal tax rates--doesn't this put us on the same side on this one?
and PS: the top 1000--5000 have a wannabe group below them. and their hopes are not going to be helped by 60--80% marginal tax rates. Nor are all of the entrepreneurs that are starting new companies, and the people they recruit to their managment teams.
You (naïvely?) continue to present a starry-eyed vision of the American way that the rest of us don't see. There's a fundamental myth of the rugged, hard-working individual fighting his way upwards here, combined with the rationalisation that this leads (like the invisible hand of the market) to maximum utility for all, that has a powerful hold on people's imaginations, but doesn't actually produce the goods (ie maximum utility for all). In fact it produces a harshly competitive society with considerable and widening inequality. But then, we'd be back into a debate on inequality, poverty, social mobility, in which neither of us is going to modify their position, isn't that true?
I don't see the problem for the economy of a progressive income tax combining a granular structure - a larger number of income brackets and rates rather than the flattening trend we've seen for a couple of decades - and a higher marginal rate than 40%.
