Letters to the Editor: ‘Abundance agenda’ might not be the answer to America’s economic woes

To the editor: Guest contributors Veronique de Rugy and Adam Michel argue that lowering tax rates on capital gains, dividends, interest and business income would reward investment and grow the economy (“The ‘abundance agenda’ will fail without tax reform,” April 30). They say we should aim for “more neutral, more consumption-based taxation.” That might look like increasing sales taxes — which take up a bigger percentage of the average household budget than of the wealthy household budget — and decreasing taxes on investments, which are important to the wealthy but have little place in the average family’s finances.

This prioritization of capital over labor is the favorite policy of those who have money to invest, but the pretense that it will “trickle down” throughout the economy has been proven hollow time and again. In 2024, the bottom 50% of U.S. households owned 2.4% of total household wealth, while the top 10% of households held 67.3%, according to the Federal Reserve. Which of these groups needs a tax cut? Which would benefit from more public spending on housing, education and healthcare?

Grace Bertalot, Anaheim

..

To the editor: This op-ed sounds encouraging by suggesting the “abundance agenda” policy framework as something both the left and right can embrace. Their argument is that if business is freed of burdensome taxes, abundance would rebound. I believe the underlying economic conundrum in the country is economic inequality, not a lack of abundance. The article asserts, without evidence, that, “An abundant economy will do more for lower-income Americans than redistribution ever could.” This sounds like trickle-down economics all over again.

Todd Collart, Ventura

..

To the editor: De Rugy and Michel might have noted that the U.S. national debt is currently $36 trillion and has been rising at the rate of $1 trillion to $3 trillion a year. For decades, GOP leadership has maintained that tax cuts at the top will spur growth and increase revenue. We know now that this is a fantasy. The authors could have actually provided a public service by listing specific measures to compensate for the revenue lost by their proposals. Simply proposing new revenue reductions, given our disastrous fiscal status, just perpetuates the folly of and damage caused by supply-side economics.

Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.