by In Taxing the Rich: A History of Fiscal Fairness in the United States and Europe, Kenneth Scheme and David Stasavage explore the intellectual and political debates surrounding the taxation of the wealthy while also providing the most detailed examination to date of when taxes have been levied against the rich and when they haven’t. Fairness in debates about taxing the rich has depended on different views of what it means to treat people as equals and whether taxing the rich advances or undermines this norm. Scheve and Stasavage argue that governments don’t tax the rich just because inequality is high or rising—they do it when people believe that such taxes compensate for the state unfairly privileging the wealthy. Progressive taxation saw its heyday in the twentieth century, when compensatory arguments for taxing the rich focused on unequal sacrifice in mass warfare. Today, as technology gives rise to wars of more limited mobilization, such arguments are no longer persuasive. [Text from the Publisher’s website.] Summary by Bryan Caplan: Democracies have no inherent tendency to “soak the rich.” Instead, democracies adopt high, progressive taxation in the face of compelling “compensatory” arguments for redistribution. Only major wars of mass mobilization make compensatory arguments compelling. Modern military technology has made majors wars of mass mobilization obsolete.
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: Income tax, inequality, Mobilization, Notes, Progressive taxation, Tax, War, Wealth inequality, World War I
This could be interesting, too:
Dirk Niepelt writes “Governments are bigger than ever. They are also more useless”
Dirk Niepelt writes The New Keynesian Model and Reality
Dirk Niepelt writes Urban Roadway in America: Land Value
Dirk Niepelt writes A Financial System Built on Bail-Outs?
In Taxing the Rich: A History of Fiscal Fairness in the United States and Europe, Kenneth Scheme and David Stasavage
explore the intellectual and political debates surrounding the taxation of the wealthy while also providing the most detailed examination to date of when taxes have been levied against the rich and when they haven’t. Fairness in debates about taxing the rich has depended on different views of what it means to treat people as equals and whether taxing the rich advances or undermines this norm. Scheve and Stasavage argue that governments don’t tax the rich just because inequality is high or rising—they do it when people believe that such taxes compensate for the state unfairly privileging the wealthy. Progressive taxation saw its heyday in the twentieth century, when compensatory arguments for taxing the rich focused on unequal sacrifice in mass warfare. Today, as technology gives rise to wars of more limited mobilization, such arguments are no longer persuasive. [Text from the Publisher’s website.]
Summary by Bryan Caplan:
Democracies have no inherent tendency to “soak the rich.”
Instead, democracies adopt high, progressive taxation in the face of compelling “compensatory” arguments for redistribution.
Only major wars of mass mobilization make compensatory arguments compelling.
Modern military technology has made majors wars of mass mobilization obsolete.
Therefore, tax the rich policies are a thing of the past, at least for developed countries. They won’t be coming back