,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The funny thing is, I wrote this piece precisely because of the way I perceive power. I was trying to show the insanity of holding the progressive agenda hostage to the idea that we cannot move forward unless/until we get the rich to agree to tax themselves more heavily.
If you believe that Congress is largely under the influence of big money, then you are naive to think that you're going to get the tax increases you "need" to save the planet in time. I'm just showing that there's another way to get at least part of the way there.
That doesn't mean I am saying we give up on the idea of taxing the rich. For crying out loud, my talk at the Patriotic Millionaires event was literally called "Why We Don't Need to But Still MUST Tax the Rich!" inequality.org/great-divide/p…
Take the low-hanging fruit, which is the fiscal space we currently have. I have cited Pilkington, who estimates $400-$500B per year and up to $1.5T if we're willing to tolerate as much as 4 percent inflation. There must be a Plan B in the event Congress won't raise taxes.
And I linked to Randy and Yeva who show how to create trillions in offsets, including taxing the rich, if we do a big ambitious GND. So you're misreading my column if you don't see it dripping with sarcasm and irony, because that's how it was written.
