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

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

[Rodney King]

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.

Actually, you are a liberal on most matters. I, too, beleive the richer should pay more. That would be the case under a flat tax.

Anyway, the issue of some people not paying taxes is a real one. If we ever reach the situation where 50% of the people don't pay much in taxes, this country will be in deep doo doo as those 50% will always vote for more and more spending.

[Torie]

Your post is 100% accurate, IMO. That is rare when it comes to the social security issue. I salute you.

[Asclepius]

... Just prudential limits. One doesn't want to kill the goose the lays the golden eggs ...

Thank you. This is, again, precisely my point. I would far rather trust in a law fairly and equally applied than any one politico or party's notion of "prudence."

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

the richer should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer because they can afford it.

I would offer a meaningful response concerning the characteristics of a free society, but I think I'd rather just call you names. Unfortunately, even egg-sucking-dog-marxists are protectd by the rules of this site, so I will refrain from personal attack.

[Rodney King]

The elasticity of the cost of capital is base on interest rates, the state of the equity markets, a company's credit rating and outlook etc. The cost of capital, like the cost of taxes has nothing to do with what a company is able to charge for its goods and services.

Please don't confuse liberals with economics. Of course, how much tax is passed on is a function of the elasticity of supply, as well as the elasticity of demand.

[Numbers Guy]

Chait actually is one smart dude. No Krugman is he.

Chait is a big admirer of (and apologist for) Krugman; he has defended Krugman's pathological obsession with Bush (and Krugman's lies about his Enron kickbacks) on numerous occasions.

Chait is also obsessed with labeling Bush as a "liar" on just about every issue other than Iraq (Chait is a hawk on that issue). This would probably be a more impressive line of argument if a) Bush was actually lying and b) Chait had a track record of being bothered by politicians who lie. Chait showed no such indignation toward Bush's predecessor and his lies, so his outrage is rather selective.

If you read Chait's writing, you sense that he still hasn't figured out what he is: A bright guy making neo-liberal arguments about taxes or a snide Carville-esque child trying to echo Paul Krugman with soundbites and ridiculous accusations. The piece you posted is strong evidence for the latter theory.

Finally, Chait has been among the most strident outside of the far left in attacking Social Security privatization. He's intelligent enough to know that stocks provide a much better long-term rate of return than the Social Security funds, so one wonders what his real agenda is. The most logical conclusion is that he fears people having their own retirement accounts independent of government largesse.

Chait could be a lot more useful as a writer if he'd be more intellectually honest and less cute and glib in his writing.

[Rodney King]

Well if you consider Paul Craig Roberts and Arthur Laffer as mainstream, I guess you have a point.

And Milton Freidman. Oh, and my Macro textbook by a guy named Parkin who is a neo-keynsian also accepts that lower marginal tax rates induces more work. The vast majority of economists accept that position. The keynsians just don't think that the extra production is worth the "unfairness" and other liberal concepts.

[Mr. Mojo]

"Free society" is a completely meaningless expression to them. They're much more fond of expressions like "the end justifies the means," and "workers of the world unite."

[Torie]

Here is a bit more on who pays the corporate income tax. The guy here states that the current thinking is that it is mostly a disguised sales tax, which assumes a high elasticity of supply of capital on an after tax basis.

[Torie]

Milton Friedman has never really been a part of the supply side cult. His focus is on spending, because he worries about the size of the leviathon. I should know, since I got to know him way back when, and we were comrades in arms on the school voucher fight in California.

[Torie]

I don't agree, although Chait does know how to throw a punch. Krugman blasts away these days with his facts wrong, or no facts. But Chait and Krugman are right on social security privitization. I participated in a thread on that, and yes took the liberal side. I did so not with joy, but because after much thought and research on the issue, that is what prudence and the facts dictated, and because I felt I had the expertise to weigh in, and should share that.

[bribriagain]

Do you also believe in the "I was born white, so I have an unfair competitive advantage, therefor I must pay more" school of thought?

[SupplySider]

"...you wouldn't want half of the techniques in Keynesisnism enacted anyway, for one, tax cuts. See Kennedy, John F."

Absolutely right. Most Democrats don't even know enough to wrongly support Keynesian economics.

Keynesian economics: cut taxes and increase spending at the trough, raise taxes and cut spending at the peak.

Uneducated Partisan Hack Pseudo-Keynesian economics: increase taxes and increase spending at the trough, increase taxes and increase spending at the peak, and increase taxes and increase spending on the way up and on the way down as well.

[Torie]

Only if I make more, which I do actually. But that is less due to the genetics of skin color than some other genetics, as well as some other advantages. In any event, to that extent, I was born lucky.

[jwalsh07]

We should pay more John. :)

I'm not in your tax bracket so we are arguing from different perspectives. From my perspective the amount I pay for the services I get is bad business.

Despite that, however, we voluntarily lop even more off the net because we contribute to those not as fortunate.

We don't have a problem paying more than those who can least afford it but we do have a problem seeing that money poured down the drain while the leviathan grows ever larger.

State employees in Ct are the wealthiest subgroup in the state. They invest nothing, risk nothing and inevitably get golden parachutes while the rest of us get golden showers.

All in all I prefer to give what I can to those in need directly. It's better business.

I have given that other issue some thought and have several questions. Let's start here:

If the remedy is just for the law profession, why isn't it for the medical profession?

[SupplySider]

Also, depending on how he is making his money, if he is a business-owner, he is creating jobs for the community. Which is something that I am not doing.

I am not rich either, but I favor much lower tax rates for those who are. The truly rich invest a large percentage of their assets. I think those investments will do more for me in the long run than federal government "investments".

[Torie]

I don't really see the relevance of the race of doctors, in almost any context. They certainly as a group, are not effective advocates in the public square, or anywhere else for that matter, Frist to the contrary notwithstanding (with McDermott to the contrary of the contrary notwithstanding). Heck, that isn't even the road to big bucks anymore. Stock brokers make more - well at least they did until the music stopped.

[Karsus]

Walter Williams. He is the guy that said on Fox News last week that EVERYONE on unemployment used it as an excuse not to work. Not some, not most, he said EVERYONE... He does have a rather radical view on things like this.

[jwalsh07]

*African Americans are nearly five times more likely than white Americans to say they distrust their doctor, according to the results of a national telephone survey.

Regardless of social class, more blacks than whites believed that their doctor would ask them to participate in a study that would cause harm and would use them as "guinea pigs" without their consent.

Black patients were also more likely to agree that their doctor would expose them to unnecessary risks when deciding which treatment to use, and to say that a doctor had given them treatment as part of an experiment without their permission.

It is not clear why African Americans are more apt to distrust doctors, but it may stem in part from the infamous study at Tuskegee, Alabama, in which US researchers allowed African-American men to suffer with syphilis despite the availability of an effective treatment.

Regardless, the findings may lend support to researchers who say they have a hard time recruiting African Americans into clinical studies, researchers point out in the November 25th issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

They suggest that researchers who are interested in working with African Americans remain involved in the community on an ongoing basis, rather than only when recruiting patients for studies.

About 37% of blacks said they thought their doctor would ask them to take part in medical research that might harm them, compared with less than 20% of whites. And more than 79% of blacks agreed that they, or people like them, might be used as guinea pigs without their consent, compared with 52% of whites.

When it came to providing treatment, nearly 46% of blacks said their doctor sometimes exposed them to unnecessary risks, compared with about 35% of whites. About 25% of blacks said their doctor had ever given them a treatment as part of an experiment without obtaining consent, compared with 8% of whites. And 42% of blacks did not trust that their doctor would fully explain research participation, compared with 23% of whites.

[SupplySider]

Progressive is regressive in that it punishes performance and rewards mediocrity and laziness. There is no reason for a progressive tax. It is theft.

I get so annoyed over the way that term "progressive" is misused by leftist demagogues. It refers, of course, to rates that become progressively higher at higher income levels. It is not meant to imply that those that favor such rates are forward thinking, unlike the Neanderthals who favor a regressive rate structure. I know you know this but I had to rant. :)

It seems to me that a "flat tax" would be every man paying the same amount. Everyone pays $3,000. per year, for example. A flat tax rate, on the other hand, seems seems quite effective at soaking the rich, if that is one's goal. At 10%, the man making $10,000 pays $1,000, and the man making $10,000,000 pays $1,000,000, a thousand time more! Where is it written in stone that fairness demands progressive rates?