Historically high marginal tax rates in the 1950s-70s were largely ineffective due to widespread loopholes and expense account abuse. Modern tax systems are more progressive primarily because they have been tightened, making it much harder for the wealthy to avoid taxes, rather than simply from headline rate increases.
The biggest tax cut isn't a legislative change but rather neutering the IRS's budget. The agency lacks the resources to audit the complex finances of the wealthy, incentivizing aggressive tax strategies and leaving hundreds of billions in legally owed taxes uncollected each year.
Taxing a specific industry like AI is problematic as it invites lobbying and creates definitional ambiguity. A more effective and equitable approach is broad tax reform, such as eliminating the capital gains deduction, to create a fairer system for all income types, regardless of the source industry.
The wealthiest individuals don't have traditional paychecks. Instead, they hold appreciating assets like stock and take out loans against that wealth to fund their lifestyles. This avoids triggering capital gains or income taxes, a key reason proponents are pushing for a direct wealth tax in California to address this loophole.
Contrary to common belief, Arthur Laffer asserts that historical data shows a clear pattern: every time the highest tax rates on top earners were raised, the government collected less tax revenue from them. The wealthy use legal means to avoid taxes, and economic activity declines, ultimately harming the broader economy.
Instead of focusing on changing the tax code, the most significant tax benefit for the ultra-wealthy has come from systematically cutting the IRS budget. This prevents the agency from auditing complex returns, effectively making the wealthy 'protected by the law, but not bound by it,' and creating a massive enforcement gap.
When a political party uses the IRS to punish enemies, it simultaneously shields its wealthy allies from audits. This allows them to evade taxes, creating a revenue gap. To fund the government, that money must be collected from lower and middle-income taxpayers, effectively creating a tax increase for them.
Billionaire wealth taxes are easily dodged by relocating. A more robust policy would tax capital gains based on the jurisdiction where the value was created, preventing billionaires from moving to a zero-tax state just before selling stock to avoid taxes.
The US tax system disproportionately penalizes high-income 'workhorses' (e.g., doctors, lawyers) who earn from labor. In contrast, the super-rich, who derive wealth from capital gains and have mobility, benefit from loopholes that result in dramatically lower effective tax rates.
Instead of attacking wealth, a more effective progressive strategy is to champion aggressive, 'hardcore' capitalism while implementing high, Reagan-era tax rates on the resulting gains. This framework uses the engine of capitalism to generate wealth, which is then taxed heavily to fund public investments in infrastructure and education, creating a virtuous cycle.
Contrary to popular belief, tax and benefit systems in many developed countries have become more progressive since the 1980s. This increased redistribution has successfully counteracted the rise in pre-tax income inequality, meaning post-tax inequality is often no higher than it was in the 1990s.