To the editor: Visitor contributors Veronique de Rugy and Adam Michel argue that decreasing tax charges on capital good points, dividends, curiosity and enterprise revenue would reward funding and develop the financial system (“The ‘abundance agenda’ will fail with out tax reform,” April 30). They are saying we should always intention for “extra impartial, extra consumption-based taxation.” Which may seem like rising gross sales taxes — which take up an even bigger proportion of the common family finances than of the rich family finances — and lowering taxes on investments, that are necessary to the rich however have little place within the common household’s funds.
This prioritization of capital over labor is the favourite coverage of those that have cash to take a position, however the pretense that it’s going to “trickle down” all through the financial system has been confirmed hole repeatedly. In 2024, the underside 50% of U.S. households owned 2.4% of complete family wealth, whereas the highest 10% of households held 67.3%, in keeping with the Federal Reserve. Which of those teams wants a tax lower? Which might profit from extra public spending on housing, training and healthcare?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: This op-ed sounds encouraging by suggesting the “abundance agenda” coverage framework as one thing each the left and proper can embrace. Their argument is that if enterprise is freed of burdensome taxes, abundance would rebound. I imagine the underlying financial conundrum within the nation is financial inequality, not an absence of abundance. The article asserts, with out proof, that, “An considerable financial system will do extra for lower-income People than redistribution ever might.” This appears like trickle-down economics yet again.
Todd Collart, Ventura
..
To the editor: De Rugy and Michel may need famous that the U.S. nationwide debt is at the moment $36 trillion and has been rising on the fee of $1 trillion to $3 trillion a yr. For many years, GOP management has maintained that tax cuts on the prime will spur progress and improve income. We all know now that it is a fantasy. The authors might have truly offered a public service by itemizing particular measures to compensate for the income misplaced by their proposals. Merely proposing new income reductions, given our disastrous fiscal standing, simply perpetuates the folly of and injury brought on by supply-side economics.
Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.
