tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post3651338293625968221..comments2024-01-04T07:33:10.137-05:00Comments on Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt: Ignorant Politics of Envy on a RampageJon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-24795028973461091472010-07-09T19:25:03.295-04:002010-07-09T19:25:03.295-04:00"How Bill Gates or George Soros' billions..."How Bill Gates or George Soros' billions are a drag on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the plumber or school teacher is unfathomable, unless we indulge the human penchant for envy."<br /><br />I disagree, unless we interpret "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in strictly economic terms. (And even then I think it's probably wrong.) The wealthy, because of their wealth, are able to manipulate and even circumvent the democratic process. ("If we don't get our way, we'll take our bat and ball and go elsewhere.") And the wealthier they are, the more they can (and do) manipulate and circumvent it. So Gates's and Soros's billions are indeed a drag not only on the plumber and the school teacher but on anyone else whose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness depends, at least in part, on a healthy democratic process. <br /><br />Having said that, I agree that tax cuts are very often the best way to stimulate the economy (and for the reasons you give). But obviously, they're not always the solution. There will come a point at which the taxes collected from new jobs will not be enough to offset the reduction in taxes that created those jobs. (Translated into economics-speak, tax cuts have a diminishing marginal utility.) Otherwise, we could maximize revenue by eliminating taxes altogether. <br /><br />The trick, of course, is to find precisely where that point (margin) is. Given our current economic situation, I'm not convinced that we haven't already reached it. One reason for my uncertainty is that many and various companies across the country are still refusing to hire new workers, not because they lack the resources to do so, but because they fear there will be a double-dip recession. And a tax break, it seems, would simply add to that fear, since it would put the country as a whole even deeper in debt. (A tax increase would no doubt add more to that fear than would a tax cut, but that's another issue.)<br /><br />But let's suppose I'm wrong about all that. It still isn't clear why you would limit your proposal to an across-the-board tax cut? If a tax cut for the wealthy really would increase jobs and, in turn, tax revenues, why not freeze taxes on the non-wealthy and eliminate taxes altogether for the wealthy? That way, the wealthy could produce an even greater number of jobs and, thus, more tax revenue. Is it because that would make you envious of the wealthy? I doubt it. Is it because you'd rather punish the rich than restart the economy? Unlikely. But why, then? I'm really curious.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.com