Most of the $Billions they are acquiring during this pandemic, is money coming from us.
The fact that so many have so little right now, and the 1% have so much, is a clear sign that the government is complicit in this runaway income inequality, and the best all around solution is an immediate adjustment to the tax laws to generate 100’s of $Billions which must only be used for aiding the poor, the sick, and the aged based upon their need.
The laws must be written to absolutely prohibit any of these funds being returned to individuals or entities who are so totally self-sufficient that they have zero need for these funds.
This story is total BS. While I would love the taxes on the rich raised, both Stiglitz and Richards know this not going to happen in our present political climate, nor does it have to. All of this could be fixed with a computer key stroke to fund the people through this pandemic, just like our wars are paid for. This is more of the “how will we pay for it” lie.
When I first read this article, I made the mistake of assuming that the recommendation was to raise Federal taxes on the rich. I was wrong.
First paragraph states “state and local governments should increase taxes on “their wealthiest residents” to “bolster their local economies” and meet pressing needs or else Americans will be forced to suffer an “unacceptable alternative” characterized by socially-damaging austerity and a long-lasting recession”
I agree with that statement totally. Here in Oregon our annual State tax filings accept all Federal tax laws and givaways to the wealthy and corporations. When filling the Oregon tax return each year, it is almost exactly the same as the one we file with the IRS. The result is that the corporations and the wealthy in Oregon do not pay their fair share of taxes here. Oregon needs to disconnect State tax laws from the Federal tax laws, and make them more fair for all Oregonians to pay for the services we need.
ReconFire, please see my comment below. Like you, I misread this article the first time through. And gave you a “heart”. Then I re-read it, and changed my mind completely.
Thanks, I think your correct, and I judged the article harshly. After doing a slow read, I agree with the authors. Glad you pointed this out, I had held Stiglitz in high regard in the past, and was surprised by my first readings interpretation of the article.
Me too. That’s also why I re-read the article and figured out what it actually said. I had to put on my Accounting/Finance/Cash Mgmt/Risk Manager/Treasury Executive hat that I haven’t worn in a VERY long time.
No harm; no foul