One way: "Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth" is a very normal pretext for slashing taxes for the wealthy.

That's what one political party wants you to believe, and quite possibly yes, what the other political party is doing these days.

However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy, the concentration of wealth does tend to even out. The statement 'Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth' in itself does not mean slashing taxes only for the wealthy. It means the government has limited power to decide who gets what, because what ultimately ends up happening, is the government ends up taking more for itself than providing for anyone else (look at the massive unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare).

> However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy, the concentration of wealth does tend to even out.

I don't see any reason or evidence for this, that is, for the proposition that ceteris paribus and independent of the distribution of tax burden, reducing the level of taxation promotes a more equal distribution of wealth.

Certainly, to the extent that a given distribution of taxation itself promotes inequality, reducing the level of taxation in with that distribution will mitigate that effect, but your proposition is equivalent to the proposition that every distribution of taxation promotes inequality compared to the absence of taxation, which I don't see any reason to believe.

> The statement 'Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth' in itself does not mean slashing taxes only for the wealthy. It means the government has limited power to decide who gets what

IOW, the thing called government is less the actual vehicle through which society is governed and more of a distracting figurehead for the masses, and the powerful govern through other means -- and still for their own benefit and others expense (but without even the need to provide a show of public participation and concern for the public interest.)

(Having a hard time following your argument...)

>Certainly, to the extent that a given distribution of taxation itself promotes inequality, reducing the level of taxation in with that distribution will mitigate that effect, but your proposition is equivalent to the proposition that every distribution of taxation promotes inequality compared to the absence of taxation, which I don't see any reason to believe.

I think you are saying taxes cause inequality, and the way we tax everyone can make inequality better or worse, but my argument is that the complete absence of taxation will always improve inequality. In another thread here I pointed out that inequality only became an issue in the 20th century around the same time the US government began taxing everyone directly through personal income taxes. This does not imply causation, but it is certainly a correlation. Yes, there are correlations as well that certain tax structures do reduce inequality, but a host of other macro-economic problems tend to correlate with timing of those same tax structures too.

Let's not forget the common risk that the government decides to do something else with that money it takes from the rich through taxes besides distribute it to the poor....such as start a war somewhere :-/

> I think you are saying taxes cause inequality

No, I'm not saying that. That's your argument.

> and the way we tax everyone can make inequality better or worse

Yes, I am saying that the way tax burdens are distributed can increase or decrease inequality.

> but my argument is that the complete absence of taxation will always improve inequality.

I recognize that that is your claim. What I don't see is a reason to accept that claim, in the form of evidence or even an explanatory theory of why one should expect it to be true.

> In another thread here I pointed out that inequality only became an issue in the 20th century around the same time the US government began taxing everyone directly through personal income taxes.

Yes, I saw that claim, as well. I'm not conviced that inequality only became an issue then, and even if it did there's a lot of competing explanations (e.g., the end of the frontier period (which, while it may not have actually impeded the growth of actual inequality, provided a distraction from it as an issue.)

But even if it was accepted that the adoption of the federal personal income tax was a contributing factor to actual inequality, that doesn't provide support for the claim that the mere existence of taxation causes inequality rather than that the particular distribution of taxes does so. First, because taxes in the US existed before federal personal income taxes were adopted, and, second, because even if they didn't, you couldn't, from one instance of taxation, differentiate between an effect of the particular form of taxation and an effect of taxation as such.

>However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy

Another pretext/excuse for slashing taxes on the ultrawealthy.

>the concentration of wealth does tend to even out.

Except this was tried and that's not actually what happened.

Please provide specific evidence or reasoning instead of arguing about motives which you can't possibly prove as fact.

When the government doesn't have a say in wealth distribution, it can't act to correct gross inequality.

You're implying that government is the only mechanism which can act to correct gross inequality, and also leaving out the fact that government has the power to exacerbate it.