To the editor: Guest contributors Véronique de Rugy and Adam Michel maintain that the reduction in tax rates on capital gains, dividends, interest and income of companies would reward investments and increase the economy (“The” abundance program “will fail without tax reform”, “ April 30). They say that we should aim “more neutral and more based on consumption”. This could resemble increasing sales taxes – which represent a higher percentage of the average household budget than on the budget of rich households – and a decrease in investment taxes, which are important for the rich but which have little room in the finances of the average family.
This hierarchy of capital on labor is the favorite policy of those who have money to invest, but the pretension that it will “stream” throughout the economy has proven many times. In 2024The 50% of American households held 2.4% of the total wealth of households, while the highest 10% of households held 67.3%, according to the federal reserve. Which of these groups needs a tax reduction? Which one would benefit from more public spending for housing, education and health care?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the publisher: This editorial seems to encourage by suggesting the political framework of the “abundance program” as something that the left and the right can adopt. Their argument is that if business is released from heavy taxes, abundance would rebound. I believe that the country's underlying economic enigma is an economic inequality, not a lack of abundance. The article claims, without evidence, that “an abundant economy will do more for low -income Americans than redistribution could never”. It looks like an economy again.
Todd necklace, Ventura
..
To the editor: De Rugy and Michel could have noted that the American national debt is currently 36 billions of dollars and increased at a rate of $ 1 trillion at 3 billions of dollars per year. For decades, GOP leadership argued that tax cuts at the top will stimulate growth and increase income. We now know that it is a fantasy. The authors could have provided public service by listing specific measures to compensate for the income lost by their proposals. Simply propose new income reductions, given our disastrous tax status, simply perpetuates madness and damage caused by the economy of the offer.
Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.
