You say: “The alternative to a weak dollar is a US monetary policy aimed at supporting the dollar rather than stabilizing economic activity in the United States ….” What about, for example, increasing taxes on energy (to reduce the trade deficit) and keep the money in the USA (to support the economy) by spending on mass transportation and energy savings in the USA. There are other unproductive, polluting excesses that will have to be reduced. Would that be a middle ground right now- help both the dollar and the US economy?

Stephen H

i said none of the things you are ‘accusing’ me of saying. i was asking you to think through your version of ‘progressive taxation’, but can only assume you haven’t and are obviously annoyed that anyone might ask you to do that.

I don’t accept your characterization of government as bad and as a drain on “wealth” creators though. government provides services we all need and use and should all pay for. and i believe the tax system should be progressive. if you don’t, fair enough.

why not abolish taxes altogether? haven’t governments been beavering away on the implementation of more efficient and innovative ways to support spending? isn’t the problem that governments spend too much on the wrong things? if the wealth creators say ‘to hell with higher tax’ and leave, then what? if only wealth destroyers should pay – whether through taxes, fines, fees etc..

as a profit maximizing economist residing in a wealthy, expensive tax haven, we might suspect your choice to operate as an ‘independent contractor’ may have something to do with minimizing your tax rate and that your career path will influence your policy preferences going forward as you (re)structure your career and choice of income streams.

and I assure you that I do not have a management position at RGE (the website hopefully has been updated) — send an email to editor@rgemonitor.com and ask. I no longer supervise the site.

if the tax issue may be better addressed by revisiting the whole notion of wealth creators as opposed to labour/welfare. as you use yourself as an example, it’s my understanding that you depend on rge/cfr/iie to create demand for, and cover the cost of your work, which presumably includes a requirement/desire to reside in the heart of one of the world’s most expensive cities. what if the lesser taxed individuals you depend on for contracts and income informed you that any increase in their taxes will have to be covered by an equivalent reduction in your salary?

and your views have not convinced me that you think your tax dollars are put to good use…

my point was simply that Pete Peterson would go up in my estimation — and I would take his message more seriously — if he was taxed at the same rate as everyone else who doesn’t benefit from the carried interest tax break. It is hard for me to see that case for cutting back soc. sec (particularly since it is in pretty good financial shape) when PE income (and yes, fee income for managing other people’s money is income) is taxed at 15%.

(“independent” with an office in CFR’s NYC headquarters and a management position with RGE?)

I never understood why it made sense for me to be taxed at a higher rate — as an independent contractor — than folks who i worked for …