To the editor: Guest taxpayers Veronique de Rugy and Adam Michel argue that reducing tax rates on capital gains, dividends, interest and commercial income would reward the investment and increase the economy (“The 'Agenda of Abundance' will fail without fiscal reform”, April 30). They say we must aim for “more neutral taxes and more consumption based.” That might seem to increase sales taxes, which occupy a higher percentage of the average budget of households than from the rich budget of households, and decrease investments taxes, which are important for the rich but have little place in the finances of the average family.
This prioritization of capital over work is the favorite policy of those who have money to invest, but the claim that it will “drip” throughout the economy has proven hollow over and over again. In 2024The lower 50% of American households had 2.4% of the total wealth of households, while the higher 10% of households had 67.3%, according to the Federal Reserve. Which of these groups does a tax reduction need? Which one would benefit from more public expenses in housing, education and medical care?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: This opinion article sounds encouraging by suggesting the framework of the “abundance agenda” as something that both the left and the right can adopt. Its argument is that if businesses are released from heavy taxes, abundance would recover. I believe that the underlying economic enigma in the country is economic inequality, not the lack of abundance. The article affirms, without evidence, that “an abundant economy will make more for low -income Americans than the redistribution than ever.” This sounds like a drip economy again.
Todd Collart, Ventura
..
To the editor: Rugy and Michel could have noticed that the national debt of the United States is currently $ 36 billion and has been increasing because $ 1 Billón at $ 3 billion a year. For decades, the leadership of the Republican party has maintained that the tax cuts at the top will stimulate growth and increase revenues. Now we know this is a fantasy. The authors could have provided a public service by listing specific measures to compensate for the income lost by their proposals. Simply proposing new income reductions, given our disastrous fiscal state, it only perpetuates the madness and damage caused by the economy on the supply side.
Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.
