I would be lax, however, if I did not mention the article, as it is a brilliant smackdown on the "100 Economists" who have urged Obama to raise taxes on the rich (WSJ Online, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich, May 18, 2009) by the esteemed Arthur Laffer and no-neophyte Stephen Moore:
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.
It would appear that the outcome of raising taxes is logical and a viable alternative to a group from the progressive "Center for Budget and Policy Priorities." How incredibly daft of them to conclude that the wealthy, or anyone, will continue to be fleeced when there are better pickin's somewhere else.
Fleecing the rich has never worked, so how they conclude that it may be the "best option" leads to speculation on how they came to that conclusion. The reasonable assumption is that they can't figure out any other option (such as lowering taxes on the rich or reducing deadbeat social spending). They are ideologically blind to those options, as it is contrary to their addiction to the idea of redistributionism, and punishing the successful.
Mr. Laffer and Mr. Moore present a bounty of evidence to rebut the "studies" performed by the "Center for Budget and Policy Priorities." Studies are wonderful things, if you have to invent evidence where no evidence exists (such as studies to determine if a new drug therapy does what it is supposed to do). If, however, there are decades of actual evidence to look to, it is not necessary to conduct additional research... unless you want to circumvent the established evidence for other than lofty objectives. What, pray tell, could they have possibly studied to come to the opposite conclusion than the historical evidence proves to be correct?
It is also unworkable to suggest that people want to soak the rich and restribute their wealth to others, as a means of making things fair. What the people may want and what actually works are not always aligned. If the people, whoever they may be, want a better life for themselves, then they have to morally and logically understand that you don't get there by making someone else the bearer of the burden, or ask them to make a contribution you are unable or unwilling to make yourself.
As Misters Laffer and Moore detail, the rich will simply take their toys and go to a new home, if they are not treated fairly and equitably. When they take their toys, they take the toys they share with others to play with, that affords the lifestyle to which others have grown accustomed.
If given a choice between a $20.00 ice cream cone, and the exact same one for $3.00, which one would you buy? It's just common sense... no "studies" required.
Posts
