Bernie Sanders Defends Democratic Socialism

[managing]

That varies truly from ones perspective. Any how. It’s a ying yang situation. You cant have evil without good and you cant have poverty without the rich. Besides its not a materialistic need. You want to buy your freedom. Money gives you freedom. Freedom not to worry. Its a mental freedom. I have many wholesome things to strive for but the be able to do that optimally I need financial security. If I was Bill Gates, Rockefeller or any other super rich dudes I would use my money for things like cleaning up this world. If I had power to change politics I would ban plastics completely over one night. This is not wholesome things to strive for? To do that I need money. Even if I had money like Bill Gates I wouldnt even want a fancy house with materialistic stuff. Those things dont interest me at all. I could easily give away most of the money as long as I had money to take care of myself. Reason why I don’t like the swedish system is that it wants to hold you down and be part of the machinery. You have to go work 9-5, 365 till the age of 65 and the rest of the time you go home and watch tv till the day you die. Is that a dream? No... you want to do creative things in life like learn to dance, paint, express yourself, have fun. Oh but it’s cool I can do that in sweden. I just have to quit my job go on well fare so I’m actually poor but just let the rest of the people in my country work hard everyday and pay me to do what ever I want. Thats the mentallity of some people here. Whats the dignity of that? They are just parasites. Should I feel bad for them? No.. my grandparents worked on farms and paid taxes they buildt this country. And sure we can allow others and help them but they have to fuc king try themselves aswell. I did not work and pay taxes my whole life so that when I get my pension at old age its miniscule and it all goes to people that dont need it. The could get their own jobs? We can all share the costs of infrastructre, health care, school and nursing the old but if you’re 20 something you can get a job. That is not how it works in my country. Never ending pursuit you say. Give me 5 milion dollars and my pursuit is easily over. It’s enough to let me live and enjoy life. I swear to god right now in sweden we go to work and get paid so we can pay the poor to move up in apartments they just use the system and stay like that for years. They never get jobs. If you would get free money every month you use the system just like them. I wouldnt because its not fair and theres no dignity in it.

I have many friends in Germany and France. I know that isn't Sweden, but I believe that they are a lot more similar to Sweden than the US. They say that they get the freedom not to worry from the social safety net those countries provide. They know that if they lose their job or have some kind of overwhelming health issue that the state will take care of them. Please note that all of these friends are educated, motivated and ambitious. They just, you know, are less stressed out because they know that they aren't going to end up homeless or dead. In the US lots of people stress out about exactly this.

 

[Beefcake]

Wait. Take a moment and reread this sentence:

"you cant have poverty without the rich."

Are you really arguing that we must have poverty so that others can be rich? I mean, if you didn't mean that, its cool. I don't want to put words in your mouth, which is why I am checking it out instead of taking it at face value.

Well isnt it true? Im not saying that we need it. But thats how it works. If you divided all the money in the world equally it would be 51 000 dollars each. No one would be poor and no one would be rich everyone is the same? As soon as someone starts selling something that shifts. Eventually you have some CEO of a company everyone is paying him for his merchandise and the money shifts in his favour. Some people figure out other ways to make money and to make income. Some people don’t excell and in time they become the poor. It takes couple of hundreds of years to see this shift but there would likely be more technological development in certain areas and less in others. All the rich would either be or move to the technologically advanced new cities in the world and it would get divided somehow. Then you eventually end up with something similair.

 

[Beefcake]

I have many friends in Germany and France. I know that isn't Sweden, but I believe that they are a lot more similar to Sweden than the US. They say that they get the freedom not to worry from the social safety net those countries provide. They know that if they lose their job or have some kind of overwhelming health issue that the state will take care of them. Please note that all of these friends are educated, motivated and ambitious. They just, you know, are less stressed out because they know that they aren't going to end up homeless or dead. In the US lots of people stress out about exactly this.

Yeah thats conpletely true but sweden is worse than germany or france. My girlfriend is french but her dad is swedish. He basically moved to france to live their because the taxes in sweden are just too high. Sweden pay twice as much taxes than you do in the US. That goes for companies aswell. This affects sallary and also in general sallary in the US is much higher. With a bachelor degree in the US average income is 70 000 usd and just a high school degree its 30 000 per year. In sweden even with a BA you dont go over 40-50k. Basically you likely do 30 000 dollars per year. And then you get taxed likely 30-40% so 12 000 dollars in taxes per year. And what in america its like 15-20% thats only 5000 in comparison. So you not only have an average higher sallary for those who work hard and get an education you pay far less in taxes. Your standard of living is much higher. Its hard in sweden with the salary to pay rent of a smal apartment and most other stuff you need then you run out of money. On top of that most our tax money atm goes to syrian refugees who only come here live together and dont want to intergrate. I know I might sound racist but its the truth. Sweden might sound nice but its quite comunistic just like the rest of europe.

 

[InChristAlone]

This is really key in having a properly functioning democracy, I think. Although I'd imagine it's something Bernie would absolutely be for - yes, it might be seen as a hypocrisy, but sometimes when you see something that's so fundementally broken and injust you have to act to try and change it.

Publics servants of high "authority" should absolutely be a wide selection of people that haven't strived for such a position (especially police). There's a saying I was told about in Islam along the lines of "those that seek positions of power are not fit to hold them", and I think other religions convey the same point.



It's far more likely that someone like Bernie would be against gun legalisation, that's true, but the republicans are going to be the ones that force vaccination (or the liberals like Hilary Clinton - remember Bernie Sanders is NOT a liberal) because they're the ones that'll be funded by the pharmeceutical companies. If there's money in it, the legislation will be passed under a Republican government (and probably a Liberal government).

I have been following the vaccine mandates very closely for the last year and the first mandatory vaccines will happen in California first, then NY, both run by democrats. I live in a republican run state and there's no talk at all about mandating vaccines. Not that I am on either side. I think they both suck. I thought Bernie would be outside of all of it since he wasn't being funded by corporate interests, but he is not clear if he would pass legislation on vaccines or guns so I am leery.

 

[InChristAlone]

Yeah one thing that was nice this past year even though we make a good middle class income we paid less in taxes and actually got refund even though we don't own a house anymore lol. BUT Trump has gutted some of the regulatory agencies which I don't think is good for the long term success of our country. For instance in Florida they let the phosphate dredgers pretty much rape and pollute the state. It's heartwrenching. All about the money.

 

[sunraiser]

Yeah thats conpletely true but sweden is worse than germany or france. My girlfriend is french but her dad is swedish. He basically moved to france to live their because the taxes in sweden are just too high. Sweden pay twice as much taxes than you do in the US. That goes for companies aswell. This affects sallary and also in general sallary in the US is much higher. With a bachelor degree in the US average income is 70 000 usd and just a high school degree its 30 000 per year. In sweden even with a BA you dont go over 40-50k. Basically you likely do 30 000 dollars per year. And then you get taxed likely 30-40% so 12 000 dollars in taxes per year. And what in america its like 15-20% thats only 5000 in comparison. So you not only have an average higher sallary for those who work hard and get an education you pay far less in taxes. Your standard of living is much higher. Its hard in sweden with the salary to pay rent of a smal apartment and most other stuff you need then you run out of money. On top of that most our tax money atm goes to syrian refugees who only come here live together and dont want to intergrate. I know I might sound racist but its the truth. Sweden might sound nice but its quite comunistic just like the rest of europe.

Look at this:

Median income - Wikipedia

The USA not only has a lower median income than Sweden (despite being a much richer country), but they have far higher outgoing costs in healthcare and extortionate university fees.

There are lots of things that happen as a part of civilised society that it's easy to be blind to or forsake. It's definitely difficult that Sweden gets so many refugees from UK, US and French imperialism but at the same time there are barriers to the welfare state for refugees, despite what right wing rhetoric might preach.

 

[Kartoffel]

Look at this:

Median income - Wikipedia

The USA not only has a lower median income than Sweden (despite being a much richer country), but they have far higher outgoing costs in healthcare and extortionate university fees.

There are lots of things that happen as a part of civilised society that it's easy to be blind to or forsake. It's definitely difficult that Sweden gets so many refugees from UK, US and French imperialism but at the same time there are barriers to the welfare state for refugees, despite what right wing rhetoric might preach.

Don't bother him with facts. Sweden is a third-world, communist shithole. USA! USA!

 

[InChristAlone]

Wasn't he saying that you cap out on your income way before educated people in the US? The US definitely has a much bigger divide a lot of people below poverty line that's for sure. But I also don't want to pay 40% in taxes so that we are making as much as someone with a high school diploma

 

[LUH 3417]

The idea of taxation is for the state to provide infrastructure to facilitate human opportunity - it's really important not to confuse social democracy with communism. For example, tax money can go towards very cheap and efficient quality public transport like trains (it does in many countries - and trains are fundementally not functional as a competitive market) to let people travel and commute further afield. The money could be used to provide lifelong education opportunities to retrain for people in a dynamic economy as opposed to being limited to those born into wealth.

It's not about "the state providing", which it doesn't remotely in the USA and the UK, anyway, it's about making sure the opportunity is there to help people provide for themselves.

I have to strongly disagree with your comment about corporations as it's something that doesn't come down to opinion - it's demonstrably inaccurate in countries like the USA and the UK. Yes, corporate interests and government have merged in these countries, but that because the parties that represent corporate interests are thrusted into power. It's not that government and big corporate are always the same, it's that corporate interests and the media do everything they can to fund those that are amenable towards letting corporations dictate policy and law. Bernie Sanders won't be getting a cent of corporate money, I can guarantee you. The same for Jeremy Corbyn in the UK - he's funded by hundreds of thousands of normal working people that push for needs for humans instead of increasing corporate profit.

The Republicans are the party in the USA that are pushing anti union legislation, but half of the democrats aren't much better - both have huge corporate backing in parts of the party. It's a big problem with the two party system. I don't understand why you align pharmaceutical companies with socialism - they're one of the biggest industries that would benefit from UNREGULATED capitalism as regulation absolutely gets in the way of their profit making - it has absolutely nothing to do with social democracy.

Do you not notice the pattern of where certain types of politician emerge from? They mostly come from rich families that went to private schools and didn't have to face any of the challenges normal humans face - this makes politics and life a game to them and they don't recognise challenges most humans face and therefore don't develop empathy for them.

Bernie is advocating giving more power back to the masses of people (via unions, for example) as opposed to advocating for corporate interests to arbitrarily increase GDP and "growth" at the cost of human wellbeing. The corporate interest wants slavery, where as people want the chance to live a happy life and find health on their own terms via fair pay and working hours/conditions.

It's unfair and inaccurate to associate all politicians with corporate interests just because corporate interests and media puppets have dominated power for such a long time.



Could you explain this comment? I'm assuming you mean Hitler but it's important to highlight that he wasn't a socialist, despite the name of his political party. He was absolutely a corporatist and a fascist - the exact same rhetoric and economic policy Trump uses. The same divide and rule notions, the same corporate interest power base.

If we're to learn the lessons of the past we absolutely can't allow people like Trump or Viktor Orban to get into power in the first place. This is actually covered in the video at the start of the thread.

You make some key points about fascism being corporatism. Michael parenti goes into detail about this in some of his videos on YouTube: the destruction of trade unions, the willingness of workers to accept temporary contracts for work and the instability that characterized working conditions and preceded Hitlers seizing of power. Eerily similar to the working conditions in the US in 2019.

 

[Beefcake]

Look at this:

Median income - Wikipedia

The USA not only has a lower median income than Sweden (despite being a much richer country), but they have far higher outgoing costs in healthcare and extortionate university fees.

There are lots of things that happen as a part of civilised society that it's easy to be blind to or forsake. It's definitely difficult that Sweden gets so many refugees from UK, US and French imperialism but at the same time there are barriers to the welfare state for refugees, despite what right wing rhetoric might preach.

Wasn't he saying that you cap out on your income way before educated people in the US? The US definitely has a much bigger divide a lot of people below poverty line that's for sure. But I also don't want to pay 40% in taxes so that we are making as much as someone with a high school diploma

I know the maximum you can get taxed is like 65% of your earnings.
Funny thing is im both american and swedish citizen so I know for sure when it comes to making money and paying taxes its much easier in america.

 

[Beefcake]

Look at this:

Median income - Wikipedia

The USA not only has a lower median income than Sweden (despite being a much richer country), but they have far higher outgoing costs in healthcare and extortionate university fees.

There are lots of things that happen as a part of civilised society that it's easy to be blind to or forsake. It's definitely difficult that Sweden gets so many refugees from UK, US and French imperialism but at the same time there are barriers to the welfare state for refugees, despite what right wing rhetoric might preach.

Besides googlin swedish sources those numbers are not correct what the average swede does.
Cost wise stuff tends to be cheaper in america aswell.
Everyone i know from UK, spain, france complain how expensive everything in sweden is.

 

[Kartoffel]

View attachment 13643View attachment 13644

I know the maximum you can get taxed is like 65% of your earnings.

Why do you think the standard of living, mental well being, school performance, incarceration rate, etc. are so good in Sweden? Did it ever occur to you that it might have something to do with higher taxation? Btw, these high percentages are the top rates on the highest percentage of your income - average tax is not much higher in Sweden than in the rest of Europe. I'm sure you understand the principle of progressive taxation. Top marginal income tax in the U.S. used to be 90% until 1963 and remained at 70% until 1983. Some people might argue that those years after WWII were America's most prosperous times.

 

[Cirion]

The funny thing I personally find is that the very people that liberals complain about (rich people) become richer while the poor become poorer precisely because of liberal policies. Hint: income tax as a prime example. Say goodbye to 30-37% of your income right off the bat to uncle sam, actually more when you consider "invisible" taxes like social security and whatnot. Wanna truly put your foot where your mouth is? Abolish the income tax at least for anyone making less than let's say, 2$m a year (a random example) and make it so the people with TRULY high incomes (200, 250k is still not that high especially in places like california) are the ones that pay taxes. The truth is the vast majority of americans don't even have $1000 in their bank account, and most americans have NEGATIVE net worth. Liberals will have you think it's because of "evil corporations" but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact oppressive taxes are one of the main problems. Yeah sure student loans and big mortgages hurt you, but people have a choice to get those, it's their own fault.

Also I think most people can't do basic math. Even a flat tax (say 20%) by definition higher income folks will STILL pay significantly more overall than middle class.

It's basic math and principles like that, that make it so liberals have basically zero credibility to me lol.

Another hot hint: Rich people will never pay income tax in the first place. Truly wealthy people like Trump pay capital gains (15%) tax, if that, due to deductions. Increase the income tax all you want, it won't even do anything for them.

Thus increasing income tax ONLY screws the poor and middle class, the very people that liberals claim to be the most in favor towards. if that ain't irony for ya, then I dunno what to tell people haha

 

[Kartoffel]

The funny thing I personally find is that the very people that liberals complain about (rich people) become richer while the poor become poorer precisely because of liberal policies. Hint: income tax as a prime example. Say goodbye to 30-37% of your income right off the bat to uncle sam, actually more when you consider "invisible" taxes like social security and whatnot. Wanna truly put your foot where your mouth is? Abolish the income tax at least for anyone making less than let's say, 2$m a year (a random example) and make it so the people with TRULY high incomes (200, 250k is still not that high especially in places like california) are the ones that pay taxes.

Also I think most people can't do basic math. Even a flat tax (say 20%) by definition higher income folks will STILL pay significantly more overall than middle class.

It's basic math and principles like that, that make it so liberals have basically zero credibility to me lol.

I get the feeling that none of you really understand how taxation works. Do you think that poor people pay 30% income tax tax in the U.S? To pay 30% income tax you must earn $157,501 to $200,000 as a single household, and even then you don't pay that on the full sum. If that means beeing poor in the U.S., I'm on to the next plane. If no one with less than 2$m p.a. paid taxes in the U.S. how do you think that would affect government revenues? Who exactely would pay for common things everyone needs like public administration, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, your beloved military, etc.? I sense your answer will be that drastically decreased taxes will of course somehow result in millions of new jobs, thereby increasing total tax revenues...yeah, and then they all lived happily ever after.

 

[Cirion]

I get the feeling that none of you really understand how taxation works. Do you think that poor people pay 30% income tax tax in the U.S? If no one with less than 2$m p.a. paid taxes in the U.S. how do you think that would affect government revenues? Who exactely would pay for common things everyone needs like public administration, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, your beloved military, etc.? I sense your answer will be that drastically decreased taxes will of course somehow result in millions of new jobs, thereby increasing total tax revenues...yeah, and then they all lived happily ever after.

This is just a leading question so I'm going to ignore it and just say this

So you think people who make 100k a year are wealthy and should be taxed 30%?+ In places like california, a 100k income is almost poverty level and can barely afford rent or mortgage payments.

I'm not even that opposed to the following:
Decrease taxes on middle and poor class (or even eliminate it), and increase taxes on higher incomes such that everything even outs in the long run.

Middle class isn't rich. Yet liberals seem to think so.

Anything more than 84k is taxed at 32%, which is almost the top bracket (top bracket is 37%). That's insane that middle class have to pay almost the TOP bracket.

Would you be for that yes or no? Yes this is another leading question, but it skips all the BS debate and gets straight to my point I'm trying to get across.

Yes, lowering or even eliminating taxes on the middle class absolutely would grow the economy. Most of Americans are middle class. So, if you put more money in the largest class in the country, and they can spend more, yes, they absolutely will grow the economy. But you can do that without even lowering overall tax revenue by offsetting it elsewhere or GASP heaven forbid, cut programs and stop wasting so much money, give me in control of the government budget and I could fix our deficit... Because I actually know how to live in my means lol.

Right now the vast majority of middle class americans live paycheck to paycheck, and alleviating tax load would alleviate this, freeing up americans to spend more money and invest in the economy. Absolutely 100%.

 

[Kartoffel]

This is just a leading question so I'm going to ignore it and just say this

So you think people who make 100k a year are wealthy and should be taxed 30%?+ In places like california, a 100k income is almost poverty level and can barely afford rent or mortgage payments.

I'm not even that opposed to the following:
Decrease taxes on middle and poor class (or even eliminate it), and increase taxes on higher incomes such that everything even outs in the long run.

Middle class isn't rich. Yet liberals seem to think so.

Would you be for that yes or no? Yes this is another leading question, but it skips all the BS debate and gets straight to my point I'm trying to get across.

Yeah, but the point you're trying to get across is based on completely faulty understanding of how taxes work in reality - People that earn a 100k a year are poor in California. You're just saying things that are absolutely false. Median income in California is $63,000 so how can someone with 100k be poor according to the definition of poverty? Generally I would support your main statement, but taxes for the middle class are not that high (again, you don't understand progressive taxation), and who exactely are the rich? According to you, you're only rich when you make 2million a year. With 2 million a year you belong to the 99.5% percentile, dude! With 250,000 you're already in the 96th percentile, so you earn more than 96% of the rest of the population! Your view on income has nothing to do with reality and is completely absurd.

People that make a 100k earn more than 75% of the remaining population, so yeah they are relatively wealthy. In Germany, you pay 40% once you earn 50,000€, just as a comparison.

 

[yerrag]

The idea of taxation is for the state to provide infrastructure to facilitate human opportunity - it's really important not to confuse social democracy with communism. For example, tax money can go towards very cheap and efficient quality public transport like trains (it does in many countries - and trains are fundementally not functional as a competitive market) to let people travel and commute further afield. The money could be used to provide lifelong education opportunities to retrain for people in a dynamic economy as opposed to being limited to those born into wealth.

We can agree on the merits of taxation, and the benefits of it is that is a pooling of resources at a level that can have good societal impact. As long as these resources are well allocated, with the government as a responsible steward, the people will benefit from it in terms of enabling a better quality of life. I think though that there are some countries better suited to a tax-heavy state and some that are demonstrably poor at it. So, it's not one-size-fits-all. If it works in Sweden, it's not because high taxation is the key reason. It's because the government there is a good steward of resources. And it's that way because the level of decency and civic awareness in the population there keeps dirty politicians from making the government a gold mine for themselves. That Sweden is prosperous can't necessarily be the result of high taxation, but is definitely a matter of good stewardship. This comes down to the character of the people, as it translates to good governing systems set in place, and as it is is implemented on the local level all to way to the state level.

As an aside, do you remember Olaf Palme? The prime mister of Sweden a few decades back. He was shot to death walking in the city - no bodyguards. Where else in the world do you have a prime minister who feels safe walking by himself? I remember this because when I read the news, I thought it was weird.

I say this because my country, the Philippines is so corrupt. Politicians are either rich elites that have their own sinecures of entitlement, or elite wannabes from the lower or middle class. Either way, they're pretty lousy stewards. The elites are useful idiots who only know how to preserve the status quo of corruption (their motto is if it ain't broke, don't fix it) and the wannabes simply are more hungry to steal public money to become part of the elite. And the people, they don't need to vote based on issues, but on popularity. Movie stars and sports figures are a sure bet. From this milieu, you get the leadership. You get to see higher taxes, but you also get to see a lot of this increased revenue wasted on corrupt deals.

In a country like ours, less taxation would be better. At the very least, the less resources going into taxes, the less resources wasted. The sure result of heavy taxation would be capital misallocation. The misallocation will not improve lives as it won't create more means for good livelihoods. Taxation saps businesses, and people don't get the benefits. The benefits go to politicians. With heavy taxation, government gets bigger also as the higher taxes can support the bloat. And politicians like to give jobs in government, as it makes them powerful. As government gets bigger, it becomes the business in itself. Instead of starting a business, one would find being a politician a better avenue for one's future.

All this comes down to is: Let Sweden have its system. Let my country have its system. Let's not copy Sweden because we are not Sweden. Do just as a dog would - don't eat cat food.

 

[Cirion]

Yeah, but the point you're trying to get across is based on completely faulty understanding of how taxes work in reality - People that earn a 100k a year are poor in California. Your just saying things that are absolutely false. Median income in California is $63,000 so how can someone with 100k be poor according to the definition of poverty? Generally I would support your main statement, but taxes for the middle class are not that high (again, you don't understand progressive taxation), and who exactely are the rich? According to you, you're only rich when you make 2million a year. With 2 million a year you belong to the 99.5% percentile, dude! With 250,000 you're already in the 96th percentile, so you earn more than 96% of the rest of the population! Your view on income has nothing to do with reality and is completely absurd.

So 30%+ tax on 84k income is not high? Actually I understand taxes VERY well, and I'm very good with numbers overall (Grad student in engineering), I've made very detailed spreadsheets, I know precisely how taxes work, I've run my numbers, and yes I pay over 30% in taxes off the bat even though I make less than 100k a yr. When you add it all up like social security, income tax, other tax related removals from your income, yes it adds up quickly. You're right, the 30% number doesn't take effect until 84k and below that is the lower bracket. But you fail to take into account things like social security. And if you don't think 30% is a high amount of tax for middle class, well then I have nothing more to say because clearly your definition of high taxes and mine differ dramatically.

Clearly you missed the point I said that california living expenses are terrible. You can easily pay $500-1000k for the same house I own in st. louis that is only around 150k. Therefore, to make an equivalent amount in CA you'd need at least 4x the income. This is some very rough math I admit, but you get my point, hopefully. That same 63k in st. louis would have like 3-4x the buying power, so yes, 63k is poverty in CA (most areas at least).

 

[managing]

Wasn't he saying that you cap out on your income way before educated people in the US? The US definitely has a much bigger divide a lot of people below poverty line that's for sure. But I also don't want to pay 40% in taxes so that we are making as much as someone with a high school diploma

I'd be happy to pay 40% in taxes. If we had good roads, good healthcare at negligible cost/hassle, a social safety net, essentially free college, etc.

 

[Kartoffel]

So 30%+ tax on 84k income is not high? Actually I understand taxes VERY well, and I'm very good with numbers overall (Grad student in engineering), I've made very detailed spreadsheets, I know precisely how taxes work, I've run my numbers, and yes I pay over 30% in taxes off the bat even though I make less than 100k a yr. When you add it all up like social security, income tax, other tax related removals from your income, yes it adds up quickly. You're right, the 30% number doesn't take effect until 84k and below that is the lower bracket. But you fail to take into account things like social security. And if you don't think 30% is a high amount of tax for middle class, well then I have nothing more to say because clearly your definition of high taxes and mine differ dramatically.

Clearly you missed the point I said that california living expenses are terrible. You can easily pay $500-1000k for the same house I own in st. louis that is only around 150k. Therefore, to make an equivalent amount in CA you'd need at least 4x the income. This is some very rough math I admit, but you get my point, hopefully. That same 63k in st. louis would have like 3-4x the buying power, so yes, 63k is poverty in CA (most areas at least).

No, I don't think that 30% for everything over 80k is much, and I don't think that social security "taxes" are bad. Here in Germany, I pay much higher taxes, and I don't feel suffocated. We also have problems with rising costs (especially housing) but that is actually a symptom of increasing income inequality. The problem you describe for California is of course a real one. But the problem of increasing geographic inequality ("ordinary" people getting pushed out of their neighbourhoods by IT people, etc) won't be solved by lowering taxes on people that are already in the top percentiles. I would really like to hear your answer to my questions regarding who is going to pay for the missing revenue, if taxes are drastically lowered as you propose.