Today's New York Times editorial claims that all three candidates are lying about their economic plans regarding taxes on the middle class. But the editorial assumes that taxes can't be made progressive.
In effect, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are saying that they can pay for their promises mainly by raising taxes on the top 3 percent of taxpayers. That’s neither politically nor economically plausible.
Far from not being economically plausible, this approach is necessary and desirable.
Using a very high top tax rate, we can re-establish an equitable and prosperous society. Wealth inequality simply leads to misery for the vast majority of the population for the benefit of a lucky few. At one time, we had a confiscatory top tax bracket. We need to bring that back, at around the 90% level. This high tax rate would encourage the creation of a larger middle class. It would eliminate a large part of the incentive executives have to take big risks with other people's money.
Also, increasing the progressiveness of the income tax would allow for reducing taxes on those who need the money most while, at the same time, reducing the budget deficit.
Perhaps best of all, it would combat the ridiculous notion that one person really can be worth more than ten thousand times another.
Remember, government spending is wealth redistribution, and what the government taxes, it can spend. It's a Good Thing overall.