J'avoue avoir écarquillé les yeux lorsque j'ai lu la proposition de la jeune sensation démocrate de taxer les très riches à la hauteur de 70 à 80%. Les adversaires républicains n'ont pas manqué d'avancer qu'elle est folle ou hystérique... Aujourd'hui un sondage révélait que près de 60% des Américains sont en accord avec la mesure proposée par Mme Octavio-Cortez. Est-il bien réaliste et profitable de demander beaucoup plus aux plus riches de la société? Oui selon Peter Diamond, cité ici par Paul Krugman. Le deux hommes sont des récipiendaires du Nobel en économie. Difficile de nier que les sources de la jeune élue soient crédibles...
"Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.
What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.
So why not tax them at 100 percent? The answer is that this would eliminate any incentive to do whatever it is they do to earn that much money, which would hurt the economy. In other words, tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire