Ideas on income inequality, climate change

Bernie Sanders cited two major problems in his presidential campaign: wealth and income inequality and climate change.

Forty years ago, Republicans started a program of cutting taxes for the rich and corporations. Since that time, the national debt has skyrocketed and the rich have gotten richer faster than ever before. David Stockman, the author of Reagan's Supply-Side Economics, has since admitted that they knew it wouldn't stimulate growth. Rather, it was intended to justify cutting federal spending.

Recently, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a tax of 70 percent of income in excess of ten million dollars annually. Additionally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax of 2 percent on incomes of $50 million or more with an additional 1 percent on incomes in excess of $1 billion.

During World War II, income tax rates exceeded 90 percent and were as high as 70 percent up to 1981. In spite of those high tax rates, the U.S. economy boomed in the three decades after World War II.

The ultrarich depend on the growth of their investments, not wages. You could tax their wages at 100 percent and their net worth would continue to grow faster than almost everyone else. That is why it's even more important to institute a wealth tax, to slow the wealth growth rate of the ultrarich.

If the rich and corporations pay their fair share, we can finance health, education, infrastructure and much more. We could eventually pay off the national debt and start a Sovereign Wealth Fund, like Norway, which has used its surpluses to build a $1.3 trillion reserve.

That leaves climate change. It's already progressed to the point at which our children and grandchildren will face unavoidable major problems. The Green New Deal could help, but it will be a very hard sell to the public.

Kent Kirkwood

Mount Prospect