Conservatives argue that in an increasingly mobile world, high tax rates run ever more risk of driving businesses and jobs overseas. The central role of entrepreneurship is advancing economic growth, they note, and since most new ventures fail, the returns on successful ventures have to be very large if entrepreneurship is to flourish. They take umbrage at the suggestion that there is something wrong with success on a grand scale. And they worry that policy measures taken to directly combat inequality will have perverse side effects.
Both sides make good points. While I support moves to make the tax system more progressive, the reality is that inequality is likely to continue to rise, even with all that can responsibly be done to increase tax burdens on those with high incomes and redistribute the proceeds. Measures such as allowing unions to organize without undue reprisals and enhancing shareholders’ role in setting executive pay are desirable. But they are unlikely to even hold at bay the trend toward increasing inequality. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-changing-focus-to-inequalities-in-opportunity/2012/07/15/gJQATol4mW_story.html
This guy is smart enough to run Harvard University but his analysis is too lame for words.
-Exactly how does inequality of outcome hurt anyone? In my book, when the bottom of the ladder is wealthier than it was - by a long shot - from the generation before, that's good. I can't figure out a single way that inequality of outcome is either preventable or desirable. Nevermind the fact that all the inequality folks are talking about resulted at the same time as massive amounts of government intervention into ... everything. How could anyone even pretend that government intervention is the cure?
-Allowing unions to organize more easily? Unions are the weapons of inequality!! The point of a union is to prevent those outside the union from being able to compete with those inside the union. High union wages price out low skilled wage earners. Unions are to inequality what the sun is to global warming. Nevermind the fact that unions quite clearly render US corporations uncompetitive in the market place, with perhaps only the US's bizarre business taxes causing more harm.
Nor should we continue to permit tax-planning techniques that are de facto tax cuts only for those with millions of dollars of income and tens of millions in wealth.
This one is a real beauty. It's a perfect example of both hubris and unbelievable naive thinking. "We" don't set tax policy - politicians set tax policy and their priority in doing so is to ensure they favor those who will re-elect them. It will have little or nothing to do with the right or wrong of it. Nevermind the absurdity of saying "we should not permit" people to keep the money and property they earned (keeping in mind the life energy they spent to get the money). If we can talk about what we can and cannot permit, how about we not permit politicians to take our lives, our liberty and out pursuit of hapiness ... oh yes, already tried that. Scope of that failure increasing daily.
Both sides make good points. While I support moves to make the tax system more progressive, the reality is that inequality is likely to continue to rise, even with all that can responsibly be done to increase tax burdens on those with high incomes and redistribute the proceeds. Measures such as allowing unions to organize without undue reprisals and enhancing shareholders’ role in setting executive pay are desirable. But they are unlikely to even hold at bay the trend toward increasing inequality. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-changing-focus-to-inequalities-in-opportunity/2012/07/15/gJQATol4mW_story.html
This guy is smart enough to run Harvard University but his analysis is too lame for words.
-Exactly how does inequality of outcome hurt anyone? In my book, when the bottom of the ladder is wealthier than it was - by a long shot - from the generation before, that's good. I can't figure out a single way that inequality of outcome is either preventable or desirable. Nevermind the fact that all the inequality folks are talking about resulted at the same time as massive amounts of government intervention into ... everything. How could anyone even pretend that government intervention is the cure?
-Allowing unions to organize more easily? Unions are the weapons of inequality!! The point of a union is to prevent those outside the union from being able to compete with those inside the union. High union wages price out low skilled wage earners. Unions are to inequality what the sun is to global warming. Nevermind the fact that unions quite clearly render US corporations uncompetitive in the market place, with perhaps only the US's bizarre business taxes causing more harm.
Nor should we continue to permit tax-planning techniques that are de facto tax cuts only for those with millions of dollars of income and tens of millions in wealth.
This one is a real beauty. It's a perfect example of both hubris and unbelievable naive thinking. "We" don't set tax policy - politicians set tax policy and their priority in doing so is to ensure they favor those who will re-elect them. It will have little or nothing to do with the right or wrong of it. Nevermind the absurdity of saying "we should not permit" people to keep the money and property they earned (keeping in mind the life energy they spent to get the money). If we can talk about what we can and cannot permit, how about we not permit politicians to take our lives, our liberty and out pursuit of hapiness ... oh yes, already tried that. Scope of that failure increasing daily.
No comments:
Post a Comment