Reply #30: By raising living wages or capping CEO salaries you are doing the same thing. [View All]

[seasat]

You'd have a government mandate that affects the income of top wage earners. Higher living wages would increase labor costs lowering margins for CEOs (at least in the short term).

The second thing is that you're ignoring the costs of government that can only be sustained by a higher tax bracket. The CEOs (unless from wealthy families) would need the subsidized public education that benefits them. They'd need the protection that comes from the US military. They'd need the US courts. If their company pays a low wage with little benefits they benefit from the low level of government programs that provide health care and food support to those folks that work for them.

If you actually compare the total tax burden including state and local taxes as percentage of income then the top 1% actually pay only about 10% more of their income over the bottom 20%. They are about 5% from the average income. The Shrub Inc tax cuts actually have the rate paid by the top 1% as lower than the average rate in the 19% just below them.

To cut the government services to the levels necessary to sustain a flat bracket would result in a return to the kind of government we had in the 1920s. Even the CEOs don't want that.

Finally, I disagree that someone that achieves the wealth to have an income in the upper brackets did that solely because of hard work. You're equating financial wealth with personal achievement.