Saturday, October 13, 2007

Honest Venality

Somewhere in this Tyler Cowen montague rests the suggestion, I believe, that social insurance may already be overrated, and that progressive taxation, while quite kosher, seems to fall too heavily on the higher Incomes. I might feel the same as Tyler, if one of a number of conditions were existent. The first and most paramount consists of enjoying the Income parameters which would leave myself affected by the chicanery. The second condition would alter my belief that persons enjoying higher Income actually don’t work much harder than their unfortunate lower Income brethren; the later Group often working less because they cannot find or fund the additional Work–or is that the Third condition. It may or may not be a potential Fourth condition that higher Incomes produce a much higher Pollution rate, basically based upon their retention of the greatest majority of that Income; this being simply a disgruntled anger at flagrant expression of Wealth, elicited from Those who ‘Work Hard for the Money’. There is always the final condition which states that a Tax Code littered with Tax loopholes cannot be considered a progressive taxation.

Greg Mankiw finds Us a Chart from Chris Edwards, who contends that the Bush Tax Cuts simply reversed the Clinton Tax increases for the top two groups, while giving all Tax Groups a massive Cut in Taxes. I sincerely wish brilliant young Economists would include Tax rate data from the 1970s and Reagan Era as well, which could outline the direction of Tax rates in this Country with perhaps greater understanding for All. It also might be more edifying to actually chart the Tax Revenue flows from these Income Groups for the entire Periods involved as well; I have always liked charts that flow upwards to the Right. It also amazes me that Taxpayers cannot seem to even pay their monthly Electric bill from the great Tax Cuts, until One hits the top 5% of Income Earners. Anyway, the Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to have brought great Prosperity.

Paul Krugman is analyzed by Mark Karlin, which I thought to provide for the heightened awareness of my Readers, though I admittedly read very little of it; the basic rationale being my clinging to my own cherished bias for and against Paul Krugman. It is still worth Reading for comprehension of a renowned Commentator and Economist. Paul may not understand that the chief Conservative bias against helping other People, comes from their basic desire to earn Money off the existence of those People, not to support such existence. I personally lack great desire to help these People as well, but this disincentive does not derive from a personal desire to save Money. lgl

No comments: