[nickcarraway]

Robert H. Frank has taughtintroductory economics at Cornell University since 1972. He is co-author, with Ben S. Bernanke, of "Principles of Microeconomics."

Have at it...

[arthurus]

He is an economics teacher approved by NYT. What more do we need?

[The Cuban]

I agree. His argument is purely economic not political. Platitutes are not going to make the reality go away. We are fat becoming Brazil. (before you flame, I vote Republican down the line). Nevertheless, economic reality is economic reality.

[GSlob]

Well, but in the terms of his "logic", were I a "wealthy" person with a mansion [which I, regrettably, am not] - having everyone else on my street living in mansions as well would not make me happy, but - since happiness is by contrast - driving past a group of penniless bums on a street corner most certainly would.

[garyhope]

I didn't know that the NY Times published comic strips.

[staytrue]

well-being depends less on how much people consume in absolute terms than on the social context in which consumption occurs.

I'm in poverty if my house is smaller than yours. Plus that gives me the right to apply for welfare and steal from you. Plus if you have a new mercedes and I only have a new honda, I'm poor and entitled to food stamps and medicaid.

[MadIvan]

In the United States, however, we enact tax cuts for the wealthy and cut public services for the needy.

What cuts. President Bush has overseen the largest expansion in Medicare since the Johnson Administration.

I should point out that conservatives don't favour "cuts" per se - we just don't want the government to be providing services to the poor, as they're so crap at it. No conservative wants cuts in charitable work, unless we're talking corruption in the Red Cross.

Regards, Ivan

[Starve The Beast]

A careful reading of the evidence suggests...

There's an important difference between "careful" and "selective".

[expat_panama]

"the federal budget deficits created by the recent tax cuts ...  ... will exceed $300 billion for each of the next six years, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

Fascinating.  Here's another thread on an article that mentions that the "deficit dropped by 23 percent in the latest fiscal year, down to $318.6 billion."   I suppose we have to expect the NYT to put it one way and the National Review to cover it in a different light; but the question remains --are we all doomed or not?

[FreeRep]

Congress should be ashamed of themselves for not deleting the estate tax for small business this July. If the estate tax were repealed, the effect on the economy would be significant. The burdens on small farms and businesses under 5 million because of increasing property evaluations is extreme.

[Toddsterpatriot]

A careful reading of the evidence suggests that even the wealthy have been made worse off, on balance, by recent tax cuts.

This is only true in bizarro (or hedgetrimmer) world. In bizarro world everyone benefits when taxes are raised to 100%, because the government knows how to spend money better than the people who actually earn it. Utopia in bizarro world was the old Soviet Union.

[spinestein]

Since when is it not paying your fair share to have to cough up 40% or more of your income in taxes?

The current proposal by many fiscal conservatives is to lower the top tax bracket to a marginal rate of 33%. Fiscal liberals think this is outrageous and greedy and want the rate raised to 40% or higher in the mistaken belief that raising the marginal tax rate automatically brings in a proportional amount of tax revenue.

It doesn't. Empirical data shows that raising the rate above the 40's results in LESS revenue and also puts the brakes on the economy by causing people to take their money out of circulation. By setting a lower tax rate, continuous revenue to the government can be maximized and continuous economic growth can be maintained.

This is the reality of economics as opposed to the "command economy" fiction advocated by many of the fossilized econ professors still teaching modern day Marxism in some colleges.

[tubebender]

First line...False premise

WHEN market forces cause income inequality to grow,

[Waco]

My B.S. Detector is all lit up.

[Lancey Howard]

No surprise that the NY Times gives this lunatic a forum.

[pawdoggie]

A careful reading of the evidence suggests that even the wealthy have been made worse off, on balance, by recent tax cuts.

If it is true that "Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy", would the NY Times not be in favor of them?