To the editor: Visitor contributors Veronique de Rugy and Adam Michel argue that reducing tax charges on capital features, dividends, curiosity and enterprise revenue would reward funding and develop the economic system (“The ‘abundance agenda’ will fail without tax reform,” April 30). They are saying we must always purpose for “extra impartial, extra consumption-based taxation.” Which may seem like growing gross sales taxes — which take up a much bigger proportion of the common family finances than of the rich family finances — and reducing taxes on investments, that are essential 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 speculate, however the pretense that it’ll “trickle down” all through the economic 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%, based on the Federal Reserve. Which of those teams wants a tax reduce? 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 a scarcity of abundance. The article asserts, with out proof, that, “An plentiful economic system will do extra for lower-income People than redistribution ever might.” This appears like trickle-down economics once more.
Todd Collart, Ventura
..
To the editor: De Rugy and Michel may need famous that the U.S. nationwide debt is at present $36 trillion and has been rising on the fee of $1 trillion to $3 trillion a year. For many years, GOP management has maintained that tax cuts on the high will spur progress and improve income. We all know now that this can be 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 harm attributable to supply-side economics.
Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.
