Those are all good answers, but for a slightly different argument. What I thought was novel about the argument in the article, was that it attacks the issue of taxing the rich from another position. It somewhat sidesteps or anticipates our usual counterarguments and argues that the volatility of a tax base that relies on the income of the wealthy is problematic, not so much that taxing the wealthy in and of itself stifles the economy (though there are hints to that in the article).
Bryan
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Sean Andrews Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:54 To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Comments on WSJ article "The Price of Taxing the Rich"
Here's a portion of my response to a similar argument, which was in response to this little piece written by Charles Kocj in the WSJ:
"Here's where my problem with Mr. Koch and your own little description of how the world works seems to run aground. The top tier are the titans and the Most Important People in Society (in so far as society exists) because you make money then use that money to employ others ("thousands" of others, by both your counts--which is no small potatoes in a country of 300 million. or...). On this count lowering the tax burden would be the best idea because then more of that money could be used productively, pumped back into the economy, more people go to work etc. Then the 95% of people who don't pay taxes would. The alternative, raising taxes, reduces economic activities, taxes, the power of these titans to lift all boats by trickle down economics, etc. Not to mention it is just plainly against the Objectivist ethic (all praise Ayn Rand). o-talk