Archive for October, 2011

Megan McArdle points out that the income share of the top 1% has declined sharply in the past couple of years:

This isn’t surprising. Income inequality increases whenever the economy improves; it decreases during recessions. There is only one known way to decrease inequality—and it’s plainly undesirable.

What about the 1940s and 1950s? Liberals are looking back at those decades fondly. They seem to have been times of economic growth and relative equality. But that’s misleading. The top tax rates during those years was over 90%.

The wealthy found ways of avoiding taxable income. That doesn’t mean there was less inequality; it just means that less of it was exposed to the taxman.

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »

That’s New York magazine’s title. They asked 50 people in Zuccotti Park some questions. Here are some of the results.

Maybe the most interesting question concerned the capital gains tax rate. What should it be? The occupiers were all over the map. 14% said zero. 10% said between 10% and 25% where it is now. 30% thought it should be between 25% and 50%; 28% wanted a rate between 50% and 80%. 6% thought all capital gains should be confiscated—a rate of 100%. 12% had no idea.

Read Full Post »

Presidential Teleprompter Stolen

Per Dennis Miller this morning, and I am paraphrasing, an APB needs to go out for suspects who are:  pompous, self-aggrandizing, messianic, blameless, golf playing, incompetents likely occupying a major city park near you, and probably haven’t bathed in weeks.

The president was asked for comment – ” uh, er, uh , let me be clear … privilege communications, um I mean its Bush’s fault”

Read Full Post »

That’s George Will’s magnificent summary of the Occupy movement’s incoherent complaint: the government is “grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.”

In scale, OWS’ demonstrations-cum-encampments are to Tea Party events as Pittsburg, Kan., is to Pittsburgh, Pa. So far, probably fewer people have participated in all of them combined than attended just one Tea Party rally, that of Sept. 12, 2009, on the Washington Mall. In comportment, OWS is to the Tea Party as Lady Gaga is to Lord Chesterfield: Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge was not persuasion modeled on Tea Party tactics.

Still, OWS’ defenders correctly say it represents progressivism’s spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.

Unfortunately for OWS, big government’s scandal du jour, the Obama administration’s Solyndra episode of crony capitalism, does not validate progressivism’s indignation, it refutes progressivism’s aspiration, which is for more minute government supervision of society. Solyndra got to the government trough with the help of a former bundler of Obama campaign contributions who was an Energy Department bureaucrat helping to dispense taxpayers’ money to politically favored companies. His wife’s law firm represented Solyndra. But, then, government of the sort progressives demand — supposed “experts,” wiser than the market, allocating wealth and opportunity by supposedly disinterested decisions — is not just susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. It is political favoritism with a clean (even green) conscience.

The incoherence of this position runs deep in progressivism. Progressives want to empower the people—by taking decisions away from them. They want to promote democracy—by turning things over to a professional core of experts who will substitute their judgment for the people’s. They decry the tendency of the wealthy to try to influence government—and then seek to give government more power, thus increasing, at once, the incentives the wealthy have to exert influence and the effects, intended and unintended, of that influence. They complain about the influence of elites—while seeking to give New Class elites more power. They want the powerful to have to feel the effects of poor decisions—but seek to avoid having to face the consequences of their own bad choices. They oppose bailouts—and want to be bailed out. They complain about the coercive power of corporations—but have no problem with coercion at the hands of unions or the government.

And, they somehow fail to see the tensions in their own position—while congratulating themselves on being smarter than everyone else.

Read Full Post »

Obama in Pittsburgh

The current Drudge headline—Obama in Pittsburgh, October 2008:

And now, October 2011:

Meanwhile, after threatening guards at the National Air and Space Museum, the Occupy DC crowd has dwindled to 53 people. (No wonder; they already occupy the White House and the Senate!) Occupy Atlanta, in a creepy display reminiscent of the Red Guards, invited John Lewis but then refused to let him speak. In Los Angeles, a speaker earns cheers from the Occupy crowd by calling for violent revolution. The more press coverage these protests get, the more Americans will turn against them and turn against the Leftist politicians that support them. But of course the protests aren’t the reason that enthusiasm for Obama has waned. It’s that nothing Obama has done has worked, and nothing he proposes doing now promises anything but more of the same. Who could enthusiastically support this?

He’s not a policy wizard; he’s not the inspiring speaker his supporters claimed he was; he seems withdrawn. Hope and change!

Read Full Post »

President Obama, in his weekly radio address today, again called for millionaires and billionaires to pay the same tax rate as plumbers and cab drivers. Since the former currently pay federal income taxes at a nominal marginal rate of 35%—I say ‘nominal’ because the phasing out of deductions makes the marginal rate considerably higher at certain income levels—and average earners pay a nominal marginal rate of 15% or 25%, and since changing ‘marginal’ to ‘average’ would only intensify this difference, there are only a few possibilities:

  • The President has in mind not just federal income taxes but payroll taxes as well. Add in the average worker’s 15.1% (including the employer’s portion) and the middle earner could indeed be paying a higher marginal rate than the person with an income over the cap. If that’s what Obama has in mind, he should be arguing for a top rate of at least 40.1%. (Plenty of people who are not millionaires pay at the 30% rate but have incomes not over the cap, which puts their marginal rate at 45.1% plus the effect of deduction phase-outs; for these unfortunates (myself included), the current marginal rate is over 50%.) But this is a dangerous argument for him to make, because it shatters the illusion that Social Security is an insurance system rather than a tax-and-welfare system. As Milton Friedman pointed out years ago, Social Security is a bad (i.e., regressive) tax system coupled with a bad (i.e., not means-tested) welfare system. Its supporters, however, probably don’t want people to see it that way.
  • The President is really talking about capital gains taxes. Currently, capital gains are taxed at 15%, which is below many people’s income tax rate—though the disparity is much smaller than it seems, because the 15% is both an average and a marginal rate, applying to all capital gains, while higher marginal income tax rates apply only to the next dollar of income. Many Democrats seem to think it’s unfair for capital gains to be taxed at a rate less than that applying to ordinary income. After all, people labor for ordinary income, but not for capital gains! They apparently just fall like manna from heaven. If this is what he has in mind, however, the President’s plan is puzzling, for it doesn’t change the capital gains rate.
  • The President is just lying, relying on class resentments and economic illiteracy.

I think it’s worth reminding people how we got to a 15% capital gains tax rate. Keep in mind that people already paid taxes on the income they invested, and are paying the 15% on all gains, most of which, for many long-term investments, are due to inflation. (Most European countries, for this reason, don’t tax capital gains at all.) And keep in mind that investment is vital to economic growth and increases in productivity, which lead to growth in real incomes. So, we want economic policies that reward investment. Punishing investment success is bound to lead to less of it, which in turn leads to stagnation. Raising the capital gains tax sacrifices the future.

But there’s another consideration that is immensely powerful and was the primary reason for the bipartisan consensus to cut the capital gains rate from 28% (in the 1986 tax reform) to 20% and then 15%: Higher rates produced less revenue. Say all you want about supply-side economics in general. In this instance, the Laffer curve is highly confirmed, and seems to point to a maximum revenue point of about 15%. Raise the rate and you reduce revenue. Why? Because investment income is discretionary in a way that ordinary income isn’t. If you increase the tax rate, people are less likely to sell the stock, investment property, or company. Fewer sales, less capital gains income, and less revenue.

Raising the capital gains tax rate, then, sacrifices both the future and the present. For what? Someone’s idea of fairness.

That idea of fairness, moreover, must be essentially punitive. What John Stuart Mill wrote about sin taxes in On Liberty applies here (replacing ‘the best interests of the agent’ with ‘fairness’, etc.):

A further question is, whether the State, while it permits, should nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to [fairness]; whether, for example, it should take measures to render [investments] more costly…. To tax [capital gains] for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable. Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a penalty laid on them for [succeeding]. Their choice of pleasures, and their mode of expending their income, after satisfying their legal and moral obligations to the State and to individuals, are their own concern, and must rest with their own judgment. These considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of [investments] as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue. But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of that taxation should be indirect; that the State, therefore, cannot help imposing penalties…. Taxation, therefore, of [capital gains], up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue (supposing that the State needs all the revenue which it yields) is not only admissible, but to be approved of.
Anything more than that, Mill implies, is punitive and illegitimate.

Read Full Post »


So, the public sector unions are joining the Occupy protests; Obama and Pelosi speak out in support of the protestors; people (especially Hispanics, perhaps to make the protests look less white?) are being bussed in and paid to protest; the protestors seem unable to explain why they’re protesting; rhetoric is becoming violent; and, in what The Hill refers to as a “shocking development,” Reid uses the nuclear option in the Senate. Where is all this heading?

It’s becoming clearer that the protests are being organized by leftist groups allied with the administration and encouraged quite openly by the administration. They are not in response to anything in particular. There have been no sudden increases in inequality or corporate control or whatever these people are upset about. The banks are not even doing particularly well. The economic conditions that are truly worth protesting are the effects of Obama administration policies. Indeed, Wall Street support was crucial to getting Obama elected. The protests are a tool of the administration, which is sending Americans out on to the streets—for what? To what end?

UPDATE: Rush today, quoting Stan Kurtz, is linking this to Saul Alinsky’s idea that you bring about radical social change by getting the broad middle class furious with large corporations. There are lots of great posts at Thoughts from a Conservative Mom—keep scrolling! And see Jeffrey Kuhner, whom she quotes:

Occupy Wall Street seeks to demonize big banks, large corporations and capitalism. Its goal is to overturn America’s economic structure. The protesters are calling for wealth redistribution, fees on bank profits and massive tax increases on the rich. Many are demanding a socialist revolution – the confiscation of private property and nationalization of the economy. They are the heirs of Karl MarxFriedrich Engels andVladimir Lenin. Their aim is to impose the hammer and sickle upon America….

Hence, Occupy Wall Street is not a spontaneous uprising of disenchanted citizens frustrated with corporate plutocracy and capitalist excess. Rather, it is a planned, manufactured attempt to prop up Mr. Obama’s failed presidency. It is a page taken straight from the Alinsky playbook: Demonize bankers and businessmen in order to divert attention from the real source of our economic woes, Mr. Obama’s policies….

Alinsky argued that an economic crisis inevitably fosters a political crisis. The key for the hard left was to take advantage of our misery to seize power and impose a socialist regime. By sowing street mayhem, Occupy Wall Street is hoping to demoralize and distract Middle America into believing big business is the evil culprit for the financial collapse. The very opposite, however, is true. Meddlesome government intervention caused the housing bubble, the subprime mortgage debacle and the reckless bank lending practices that triggered the Great Recession. The way out is not more statism; it is less. Only a vibrant free market can restore economic recovery and stimulate job growth.

The protesters are not interested in real solutions. They are political activists masquerading as concerned citizens. Progressives are desperate to keep Mr. Obama in office. This is why the president is deliberately encouraging Occupy Wall Street. He hopes to create enough bedlam and then target Republicans, the Tea Party and the rich. He is pursuing the Alinsky strategy of divide and conquer, pitting interest groups and different classes against each other.

Mr. Obama has unleashed class hatred and racial hostility in the pursuit of state socialism. It is clear that his 2008 campaign slogan of “hope and change” was really a thinly veiled rallying cry, not to save the nation, but to precipitate the downfall of American capitalism.

Read Full Post »

Three Great Apples

As seen on twitter posted by professional golfer Jason Gore (@jasongore59)

3 Apples that changed the world: the one that Eve ate, the one that fell on Newton’s head & the one that Steve built.

Godspeed Steve Jobs.


Read Full Post »

I’ve been to several tea parties, and I can assure you that there’s a lot more diversity at them than at the Occupy Wall Street protest. Tea parties have some blacks, lots of Hispanics, lots of young people, lots of old people, lots of families, and lots of women. In contrast, look at this CBS photo (HT: Glenn Reynolds):

And this is in New York City, one of the most diverse cities in the world in just about every respect.

I think they’re worried about the loss of privilege that a withdrawal of subsidies might bring.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has noticed the same thing. “Progressives of pallor”! I like it!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers