|Blog >||Login||Register||User Profile||Posts||Topics||Players|
Elizabeth Macdonald from FOX Business shows in numbers how the upper income brackets pay more than their share of taxes, and deserve a bigger tax cut. Good article.
William Gale, Melissa Kearney, and Peter Orszag of Brookings tried out a typical left-wing robin hood scheme. And the results show that you can't beat income inequality by soaking the rich.
They tried to see if raising the top income tax rate to 45% and even 50% (from 39.6%) and then sharing the loot among the bottom 20% of households (always households ... don't they ever learn?) results in a reduced Gini coefficient of the American economy. The results were almost zilch (as they put it, "exceedingly modest").
Only as an afterthought do they include any behavioral adjustments to this tax-and-redistribute scheme, and then only to the taxed. Rather than reporting how much income and tax revenue is lost due to changes in behavior, they bemoan that this doesn't reduce income inequality (because the rich work less) either. What a shame.
They conclude with this:
How about this question instead: If new and more unfair ways of re-arranging earned property doesn't further your academic desire for a nicely patterned breakdown of annual income statistics among arbitrarily grouped workers, why don't you look for a better way to spend your time that actually provides something of value to people?
Deidre McCloskey has a good essay here on Piketty. A little late, not very timely, so forth.
Saw this article over the weekend.
Francis Menton's thesis is summarized in these paragraphs:
A very good hypothesis, one I am inclined to agree with. However, to be fair, the coincidence of high inequality in areas dominated by progressives might be because progressive policies cause greater income inequality or it might be because high inequality causes people to vote progressive. I think it's some combination of both.
The linked paper applies the "If you want redistribution, see how you like global redistribution ..." argument to John Rawls' theory of justice (veil of ignorance, so forth), exposing the muddled ethics.
This article came out three months ago, but I neglected to post it. Very good stuff.
I wholeheartedly agree with this article except for the following paragraph:
Weak. He spends the whole article explaining that the minimum wage doesn't work, then says here that it should be raised. Stand up for your beliefs, damn it.
Their argument is basically that other countries subsidize their exports, so we should also to avoid losing in the global marketplace.
Not buying it. If other countries subsidize their exports, our consumers are the beneficiaries. Why waste our own (tax) money trying to compete if we get the benefits of their unfair competition?
If country A exports airplanes and A's government subsidizes them to sell at a 50% discount, that benefits American consumers (or businesses like airlines, as may be the case here) by cutting their cost of business. If our own aerospace companies can't sell them for that cheap, then let capital re-allocate to a different industry where we are competitive. We're already getting the cheaper goods (at the expense of country A), so why pay the expense ourselves too?
A good article, particularly for readers who are new to the inequality debate.
A good article.
Copyright © 2015 Anthony Quain
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of material from TonyQuain.com without the expressed written consent of TonyQuain.com is strictly prohibited.
Materials published and opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author(s) of this site.