Posted on 06/26/2003 9:55:34 AM PDT by Mr.Atos
A fundamental principle of American life is this: Anyone can rise from poverty to wealth. That's a promise that the United States has fulfilled better than any other country, in part because the government has given that mobility a helping hand. The spread of universal public education, expansive immigration policies, and rigorous patent and intellectual-property protection have given successive generations the tools and incentives to create wealth. Meanwhile, the abolition of primogeniture, antitrust policies, and estate taxes have ensured that fortunes and status gained in one generation aren't handed down in perpetuity...
Modern conservative economists love this mobility, and they often cite it as a reason why income inequality isn't troubling. A college student has virtually no income today—and thus is counted poor—but in 15 years will assuredly rank as comparatively wealthy. High-wage-earners, upon retirement, may descend the income ladder as they live off of their pensions and Social Security...
But what if people are less and less likely to move up or down the income ladder?
When inequality rises—as everyone concedes it has—and mobility falls, American society becomes much less fluid, much more stratified. As a result, "Compared to 30 years ago, families at the bottom are poorer relative to families at the top and also a bit more stuck there," Katz and Bradbury conclude.
Keep in mind that inequality rose and mobility decreased in the 1990s, when taxes were raised on the wealthiest. Bush administration policies—sharply reduced marginal rates, a gradual abolition of the estate tax, a reduction in the dividend tax—will surely amplify the trend. To borrow another phrase from Schumpeter, our bias in recent years has switched from creative destruction toward creative preservation. The rich have figured out how to use the federal government to help them stay that way.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Is there supposed to be something troubling with this conclusion? In a reflexive sense, could one say that the free (in America) have figured out a way to use the Federal Government to help them stay that way?
The left really has lost its mind, when irrationality of this magnitude is used in their defense. COuld it be any easier to bludgeon them?
Then how does the author explain the progressive income tax?
I presumed he doesn't believe it needs explaining. He's just trying to defend it with a sublime statistical attack on the notion that people deserve what they earn.
afterall... everyone concedes.. that progressive income taxation is good for society. (Pardon me if I read between the lines and jump to the conclusion that the author refuses to state).
The left, while taxing the middle-class and poor to shreads, wrote the laws so they could remain rich--and aloof.
And so they can cultivate a serf class of indentured dependents that will ensure the power of the mentally incompetent and ethically repugnant left-wing elitist ruling oligarchy.
But, the notion that something is wrong with someone achieving and maintaining their wealth in an society where money is the direct representation of a man's achievement... well it is proposterous to say the least. Its moronic to think such a notion should make anyone angry.
I am, by no means, rich. But I like to hold it out as a possibility as I earn, save, strive, think, achieve and invest. I see nothing wrong with my belief that I should get to keep it... nor that the government should do anything to prevent me from keeping more of what I earn.
That has to be BUMPED!
U R so right! What group was the largest contributor to Slick Willie and algore? TRIAL LAWYERS>>>
"It took just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars --rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to "the family," and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his "need" -- so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that "the family" would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because its miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm -- so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brothers... what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?" (Atlas Shrugged, A Rand)
Admire the rich! They make wealth possible.
I'm an Intern Freeper. :)
Unlike the author of the article discussed here, they know that free market economy, economic liberty and individual freedom cannot be separated.
Am I reading this wrong or is that a complete non sequitur?
If inequality rose and mobility decreased when taxes were raised on the wealthy, it only follows that taxes on the wealthy should be lowered to increase mobility and decrease inequality, which seems to be what this author is seeking. Instead, this author explicitly says that Bush's tax cutting "will surely amplify the trend."
What gives?
Am I reading this wrong or is that a complete non sequitur?
Don't try to understand them. They [The Leftists] "are a breed apart and make no sense!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.