Posted on 10/20/2015 6:51:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
You may not have noticed, but Lincoln Chafee, the erstwhile Republican U.S. senator and Independent-turned-Democratic governor, had one penetrating comment at the Democrats' debate Tuesday night. "But let me just say this about income inequality," he said toward the end. "We've had a lot of talk over the last few minutes, hours or tens of minutes, but no one is saying how we're going to fix it."
Chafee offered no solution himself and showed his confusion about the issue by saying that inequality "all started with the Bush tax cuts that favored the wealthy." Actually, as my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy Carney has demonstrated, Bush's cuts actually made the tax system more progressive, with the highest 10 percent of earners paying a larger share of federal income taxes than before.
But every once in a while a pig sniffs out a truffle, and Chafee, after standing silently for tens of minutes, found one. The policies proffered by the others on the stage would do little or nothing to reduce income inequality, just like the increase in high-earner rates Obama got in 2013 (which no one mentioned).
Neither did anyone call for higher rates now, though on the stump Bernie Sanders has mentioned favorably the 90 percent high rate in place during the 1950s.
One possible reason is that when middle-income voters hear talk of a tax increase they assume it will fall on them. Another is that higher rates would hit many East and West Coast Democratic voters.
Another good reason, though not one appealing to the candidates, is that history shows that no matter how high rates go, top earners' effective tax rates aren't much higher than currently. And current rates are the most progressive in the advanced OECD countries. The Scandinavian countries praised by Sanders have value-added (meaning sales) taxes around 25 percent.
A recent study by Brookings economists William Gale, Melissa Kearney and former Obama budget director Peter Orszag concluded that raising the high rate to 50 percent and distributing all proceeds to the lowest-income 20 percent would have an "exceedingly modest" effect in reducing income inequality. In response to critics, they wrote that "no single policy within the realm of the politically feasible could in fact substantially offset the long-term, powerful trends in income inequality."
Democrats' other proposals would not make much difference either, such as Hillary Clinton's call for more spending on "early childhood education," despite repeated studies that it has no lasting effect, and "schools that meet needs," whatever that means.
Clinton, Sanders and Martin O'Malley called for "tuition-free college," echoing Barack Obama's free-junior-college proposal. But junior college is already free for most low-income students, and increases in government aid have produced administrative bloat. Which Clinton at least recognized, by calling for getting college costs down, without specifying how.
It's also worth asking what is progressive about a policy that forces taxpayers, many of whom lack the skills or inclination for college, to pay for the college costs of people who on average start off higher on the income ladder and may climb higher still.
Another favorite proposal was government-mandated paid family and medical leave. We need to join the rest of the advanced world on this, said Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. And each called for a higher minimum wage ($15, said Sanders).
Naturally they avoided mentioning the costs -- the elimination of some jobs, closing of some businesses, price increases to consumers. Wal-Mart's self-imposed $10 minimum wage resulted in sharply reduced profits and may mean higher prices for consumers. Somebody has to pay for free stuff.
Moreover, most minimum-wage earners aren't sole household earners and aren't in low-income households. Paid family and medical leaves, presumably welcome to many, would cover only a few months of working lifetimes.
The Democrats' dirty little secret is that the inequality they complain of is most common in places where they have put policies like minimum wage increases and paid leave into place. California has the highest poverty rate (compared to living costs) in America, New York City the most economic inequality.
French economist Thomas Piketty, who advocates massive wealth redistribution, notes that inequality was reduced sharply in the first half of the 20th century -- by two world wars and a worldwide depression.
One thing you didn't hear the Democrats talk about was how to increase overall growth above the anemic Obama levels of 2 percent. Do they have anything to say about that?
a gang of thieves are generally not all that interested in building things, but they are fixated on splitting up the take. Because taking from others is what they do.
This nonsense about income inequality always brings to mind Aesop’s Fable about The Grasshopper and The Ant. You will recall that the former frittered and frolicked away his time while the latter worked diligently to store food for the upcoming winter. Once winter arrived, the Grasshopper wanted to share in the Ant’s bounty. Sound familiar?
Perhaps a reading of Edward Stanley Robertson's late-19th Century Essay entitled, The Impracticability of Socialism, might shed light on the candidates' next debate topics.
Note Robertson's final paragraph:
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." - Edward Stanly Robertson, "The Impracticability of Socialism"
Thanks again for another great post.
Democrats debate socialism or nothing.
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.