Quote of the Day
There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws.There is only the way of intuition,
which is helped by a feeling for the
order lying behind the appearance.
Albert Einstein
Book Smart, Blog Stupid
As I've mentioned before in the blog, my favorite email all day is my daily digest of posts from Cafe Hayek. Russ Roberts had a small gem of a post which he entitled "I Don't Know What To Call This Post". He's basically pointing out that Paul Krugman as an economist writing economics textbooks realizes issues of moral hazard, etc., with overly generous unemployment benefits, but as a Gray Lady "progressive" columnist and blogger, he takes shots at economists making similar points. Unlike Russ, I have no problem coming up with a post title: look up...
Political Humor
Facebook Corner
(Illinois Policy Institute). A progressive income tax would deliver a devastating blow to Illinois’ already struggling business climate.
So do we balance the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly and struggling middle class?
It's "trickle-down government" as usual. The upper middle-class bureaucrat gets his cut and unpaid-for pension; the government is a tax on the economy and is grossly inefficient and ineffective. The idea that the cure to a bad economy is taking money out of the pockets of wealth-producing businessmen and into the pockets of parasitic demagogues whom call spending other people's money an "investment" is in denial of the parable of the talents.
The biggest driver of the private sector economy is consumer spending, which accounts for almost 70 percent of all economic activity. By overtaxing the working poor and middle class and undertaxing the wealthy with it's unfair flat tax Illinois puts a drag on private sector growth and jobs. Of the 41 states with an individual income tax, all but seven have graduated rate structures.
The report written by the State Budget Crisis Task Force, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says:
"When Illinois wrote a flat tax into its 1970 Constitution, the United States was a much more middle-class country. Income inequality was at a historic low, especially in industrial states with heavy manufacturing bases and large union membership. That, of course, has changed in the last 42 years. Chicago has lost all its steel mills, for one thing. The income of the average American has remained constant, while the income of the top 1 percent of Americans has tripled."
It's time for the rich to step up and pay their fair share.
"Progressive" income tax rates are morally unjustifiable and inefficient from an economic standpoint. It penalizes economic success. This progressive troll is citing conceptually misleading statistics on the economy; as Skousen points out, the "make" economy (which the troll ignores) is more than twice as large as the "use" economy.
If we're doing to do something as economically illiterate as taxing wealth-producing activities, you should make it as flat as possible. Think, for example, if your gas tax was progressive in nature: why would anyone fill up? A flat tax is simpler to administer and collect and is fairer in that each dollar of income is treated equally: at a certain level, a person is working more for the government's benefit than his own.
In fact, in a flat system, people or businesses making, say, 80% of the income pay 80% of income taxes. Trolls think that's "unfair"--they should pay more than 80% of income taxes. If the troll actually read some economics instead of reading and regurgitating "progressive" propaganda and talking points, he might actually learn something. The idea of blaming a flat income tax to alleged income inequality (a state of denial ignoring longitudinal social mobility studies) is preposterous; in fact, economic growth and income rose more consistently during the Gilded Age--without Statist meddling in setting wage floors, taxing income, etc.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy and Townhall |
Yvonne Elliman, "If I Can't Have You". The Bee Gees had to be the hottest songwriters around from the mid-70's to early 80's. Not only did they dominate the late 70's with their own performances, but they wrote strong hits for other artists: Dionne Warwick, Barbra Streisand, Tavares, Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton, and this sparkling performance by Yvonne Elliman. I actually prefer the Bee Gees' own version--I like the manic driving percussion arrangement.
If it sounds like I have the Bee Gees on my mind, it's because I've been driving over the past week with their #1's CD. I'm also embedding Sarah Brightman's version of a lesser-known hit, "First of May", which has become a personal favorite for much of the same nostalgic reasons I love Faith Hill's "Where Are You, Christmas?" I think her understated performance perfectly frames a flower of a song; she also has live versions where she goes into her full soprano. (For me, opera singers often sound like they're singing with a mouth full of mashed potatoes: I can barely make out words; an opera singer doing a pop song is almost like Dolly Parton trying to put on a training bra.) I don't like singing gimmicks, like Michael Jackson's grunts, Mariah Carey's warbling up and done octaves, all the runs that American Idol contestants do to try to impress the judges, etc. Maybe it's jealousy that I don't have the pipes, but as a writer I want to hear a singer do full justice to the lyrics.
