Income inequality, tax structures and populism. A primer of these issues, history and ramifications. A very instructive op ed. The mere shift from taxing corporations from C-corp to S-corp “has had a profound effect on what is now measured as the income of the top 1%, since a significant amount of what is now declared as personal income is actually income from businesses that are now taxed as individuals.” Liberals, of course, are not interested in the facts, as they blather on about taxing the ‘rich.’ BTW, that ‘strategy,’ misguided as it is, doesn’t work any better in other countries than here-witness Britain backing away from Labor’s effort to do so.
- If the share of income coming from businesses, capital gains and dividends had remained at the levels before the tax rate changes of 1986, 1997 and 2003 respectively, the income of top 1% filers would have been 31% lower in 2007. The growth in income since 1979 for top 1% filers would have been only 2.5 times as large as the income growth of all taxpayers—not 3.6 times as large.
- Economic growth would have been lower and aggregate measured income of all taxpayers would have fallen, but the distribution of income would have been flatter.
As Obama replied in an interview, when told of this phenomenon, ‘It would be ‘fairer.’’ This guy is our President?
To vilify success and the rewards it garners is an assault not just on capitalism but on liberty itself. As Will and Ariel Durant observed in “The Lessons of History” (1968), “freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies . . . to check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed.”
Don’t Worry about Deficit that will Heal Itself Contrarian or denial? Blind and ideological naivite. Just incredible.
Jobs Report. 120,000 new jobs, less than needed for growth in population and “unemployment” goes down by .1% (major reduction in ‘workforce,’ as people bail from looking for jobs. 8.8 million fewer in workforce than when Obama inaugurated. Breaks 3-month trend of more than 200K new jobs. Economy still dead.
Romney may have the momentum and the betting odds, but until he’s really close to the nomination, I’m not spending a lot of words of speculating on his VP pick. George Will’s column today, however, IMHO, is worth sharing, as it points to something he feels is much more important than catering to a particular demographic, which he shows is usually missed. “The War on Women” is entirely a Democrat fiction, so, IMHO, again, a female pick should be for other reasons other than gender or ethnicity (Govs Haley and Martinez, for example.) So, what’s Will’s criterion?
Who’s doing cite-checking at the DoJ? RE: answering 5th Circuit homework. Nobody. What a complete group of incompetant, lying murderers.