I'll let you read it and be the judge, but I can't help commenting on one passage:
Perhaps Mr Kristof noticed that Meg Whitman, a billionaire, failed to take the governor's mansion in California, despite spending more of her personal fortune on a political campaign than anyone in history. In a plutocratic California, the state's fourth wealthiest person wouldn't have to win an election to rule.
While I don't necessarily disagree with that, I would respond that Ms. Whitman didn't run to improve or protect her financial position, but rather out of a genuine desire to run California more efficiently. (Am I naive?) As Warren Buffett mentioned on CNBC this week (again), he's taxed at a much lower rate than the people who work for him. I kind of doubt that Ms. Whitman spent $140 million of her own money to obtain a position that would have no influence on her federal tax rate.
P. S. Reihan Salam also has a rebuttal in the National Review.
1 comment:
Shockingly, I agree with Salam!
There are many possible causes of a high level of income inequality. The historically most typical cause is the concentration of political power in the hands of a predatory elite.
But then he goes on to say that this is NOT true in the US and OK - So while agreeing with him, I totally disagree with him.
The US totally suffers from "the concentration of political power in the hands of a predatory elite" - and Salam is one one the Praetorian guard of that elite.
These folks complain about "class warfare" - when really they are just complaining about the rest of us fighting back.
The way that this was handled in teh past was high marginal tax rates for high earners - 70% though the 70's - 91% in the 1950's.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
It is time to discourage high earning - that money should be used to grow the economy - either put that money to work in your business ( i.e. no taxes ) or the government will put it to work for you.
Post a Comment