Get Lucky; Is The Wall Street Journal's editorial page written by James Bond villains?

The New Republic ^ | December 17, 2002 | Jonathan Chait

[Torie]

One would hope that this rather procative piece from the Left will provoke more thoughtful responses than Bandwidth wasting bon mots. That hope is probably futile. In any event, I happen to agree with much of it. But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.

[Paul Atreides]

Why should the rich pay more?

[Keith]

idiots...when did ANY conservative publication ever advocate MORE taxes for ANYBODY...lying sacks of dung...

[ACross]

Likely, because he envies the rich.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Not having read the WSJ editorial, it's difficult to judge the article. I would support a new way for the gov't to raise revenues. Such as a national sales (consumption) tax. The current system can only create more bitterness, 'class envy' and, of course, more criminals.

[ClearCase_guy]

But the rich do pay more. How can you miss that? The poor in this editorial pay 4% of their income in taxes, the rich pay close to 50% of their income in taxes. I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I believe the top 5% in income pay 50% of all taxes collected in the US.

The WSJ point is solid. If poor people can vote themselves goodies from the government, yet pay only 4% of their income in taxes, then they will vote for lots and lots (and lots) of goodies for themselves. Just so long as other people pay for them.

It should be clear that this is unsustainable over the long haul.

[ClearCase_guy]

Solution is a flat tax IMO. It's fair in that everyone pays the same percentage. If you think your taxes are too high at that point, you have an incentive to vote against goodies for people.

[chaosagent]

How much more should the rich pay? How much is their fair share.

Right now the top 50% of taxpayers0 pay over 96% of the taxes.

The top 5% pay over 56% of the taxes. How much do you think they should be paying? 60%, 70%, 100%.

How much?

[Torie]

To address all of the comments so far at once, the richer should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer because they can afford it. That of course is a value judgment. It needs to be weighed against how the structure affects the growth of the pie. But supply side has been was oversold. There isn't much data to back it up at the brackets we are talking about here.

Your figures are just based on the personal income tax. You need to take into account all taxes, including FICA and local taxes, and figure that about half of the corporate income tax is a disguised sales tax. Looking at absolute dollars paid, rather than percentage of income paid, is interesting but tends to obscure the issue.

I would like to see the particular WSJ editorial too, but the WSJ's tone on this matter has become quite strident, and I do recall the WSJ worrying about talking so many folks off the income tax rolls would foster a soak the rich mentality. The WSJ tends to get a bit paranoid about these things.

Someone mentioned envy. I am afraid that shot rather misses the mark. :)

[Asclepius]

... The richer should pay more ...

Who gets to decide who's rich?

[Benrand]

"The Journal is perhaps most famous for helping to transform supply-side economics from a crank doctrine ridiculed by mainstream economists and rejected by Washington policymakers into a crank doctrine ridiculed by mainstream economists yet embraced by Washington policymakers"

Has this idiot ever taken an econ course? I swear, these loudmouths are completely ignorant on economics but they have it in their head that they are automatically knowledgeable. I wrote a guy from the LA Times, Doyle McManus, about his ignorance masked by faux-confidence on the subject of price caps. He had one econ course in school but proclaimed that someone was wrong because they didn't embrace price caps.

Mr. Chait, Supply Side economics works, crusty Keyensianism doesn't, and you wouldn't want half of the techniques in Keynesisnism enacted anyway, for one, tax cuts. See Kennedy, John F.

[Torie]

I will. Well, not just yet. In any event, it is a judgment call, and in part dictated by spending levels and income levels. The rich today are so much richer than the rich of a generation ago, and there are so many more of them (both of which are a good thing), that they do pay taxes in impressive absolute dollar numbers.

[Torie]

Chait actually is one smart dude. No Krugman is he. He is of the Left, but he gets his facts right usually. He cannot be blown away with minimal effort like so many of the ususal suspects.

[Benrand]

I just did, I made it through two paragraphs and found an inconsistency. He's not one smart dude. He's ignorant, sorry.

[ClearCase_guy]

Who gets to decide who's rich?

I believe that the standard measure for the Democrats (though they try not to say it loudly) is that household income over $50,000 a year classifies you as Rich. So, we should soak the rich, right? Lots of folks say "Yes" without realizing they're volunteering to be soaked.

And just in case Torie wants to say "But I do volunteer!", I'll just point out that NO ONE to whom I have explained this has actually taken that position. I know a lot of Liberals. But when I tell them that they are rich, due to their household income, they completely deny it -- and continue to say that they should not pay higher taxes, but the rich should. That's called cognitive dissonance, folks.

[Torie]

What was the inconsistency again?

[The Raven]

The detrimental effects of the tax system are beyond a liberals comprehension.

We need to just talk "spending" with them with simple no's

[Torie]

Most of the upper income liberals and moderate liberals I know don't think they are overtaxed. But then maybe the folks that I know I odd. A little chart is coming up soon. Stay tuned.

[The Great Satan]

The WSJ point is solid. If poor people can vote themselves goodies from the government, yet pay only 4% of their income in taxes, then they will vote for lots and lots (and lots) of goodies for themselves. Just so long as other people pay for them.

Give that man a cigar!

[Asclepius]

I will.

Thank you. This is precisely my point. So what your arguing is not economics, but ethics.

Another point. When we enrich the majority at the expense of a minority--on grounds of class, in this case--first, we undermine the notion of equality before the law. Second, and most important, no conceptual, logical, dialectical, or even material limit exists on the claims of the majority for the incomes and assets of the minority, i.e. those enjoying the benefits of appropriating the incomes of others have no incentive to ever vote for any other policy than an ever more steeply progressive rate of taxation.