I have read all your posts and the rebuttals and your replies. Thank you for the public debate. I thought 95% of the time, it was well done on both sides. But I have to say one sentence in your post above -

"I call this class war because I don’t agree that simply increasing the after-tax income of the rich is ipso facto good for the country as a whole."

reflected very badly on you.

Literally read, the first of these says you use the word "war" to describe an argument you "don't agree" with. I understand that couching your thesis as "class war" will sell books to the faithful and couching it as "I respectfully disagree" will probably sell less and if you had said, I did it to sell books, fine. However, you didn't and the reason you actually laid out simply reveals that you throw epithets at those you disagree with, which is unconstructive and undemocratic. There is a big gap between "we don't agree" and "war" in a civilized society.

I also note the following ,which is a theme I have heard over and over from those in favor of greater redistibtion of wealth in the US:

"Circumstances of birth and other luck plays a huge role in economic success"

and what I always want to know from the proponents of this view - who always use undefined termds like "huge" and "fair share" is a) just exactly "how much" is "huge" and how did you determine that, and b) isn't that true of every middle class American relative to the rest of the world, so, if it is to be an animating principle, what would be the principled justification (as opposed to a positivist or instrumentalist excuse) for redistributing wealth only within the USA's borders as opposed to redistributing the wealth of America, taken as a whole, to the poorer ounries of the world?

Wealth distribution is less a moral issue than one of civil society. I and others that favor a smaller "dynamic range" of wealth feel that there are benefits to society when the non-wealthy have a fighting chance of being wealthy. The corollary is we see risk to society when the middle disappears, or more accurately, there is concentration at the extremes.

The healthy society and body politic is the one where even the lowest, prsioners and the indigent, agree things are as they should be.

There is no point in arguing over whether starting circumstances have significant effects on an individual's future. That is obvious, but what is arguable is of course degree. So can we settle on "non-trivial"? Any non-trivial contribution by circumstance weakens the argument that all start equal, so none should be aided. The only reason to let people find their way unaided is to let a Darwinian selection occur. But if there are unequal starts, the selection is not for the best, merely the connected.

And it is not obvious that selection should be allowed to occur without modification. I can't imagine any parent applying it to his own children, without a bit of safety net within the family. Having some safety net for citizens makes us more like a family. It makes us more of a nation. It makes us more human, since there is no evidence that aboriginals ignored the weaker among them.

The pure libertarian mode is machinelike and amoral.

Anyway, I’d like to discuss my book without being forced into an abstract debate over first principles.

It's a pity (in my opinion,) that more of the commentariat here don't seem interested in obliging you on that, either. Looks like you may be in for a very ideological book tour unless you change something (I dunno what--no suggestions, just pointing out what I see.)

Great post. I really enjoyed the debate between Chait and Wilkinson. In fact, I thought the comments on Wilkinson's post were very unfair to him, and I praise Chait for just tuning out the two others. Wilkinson was truly a disputant, whereas the other two were just going through the motions in a way that irritated me. It was like, well, in passing, we all know supply-side economics works, and then, loudly, how dare they insult me! This kind of indignation in place of argument worked back in the days when the aristocracy could challenge you to a duel. It serves rather badly for the new aristocracy of young men and women of no special expertise who make it big in the media by supporting the right. Wilkinson really made his best case for what I personally consider craziness, and I'm grateful to him for appearing here.

I thought his case was shifty for several reasons. A small part was the charming face, of disavowing "drown it in a bathtub" in favor of the truth. But of course the GOP coalition depended on several parties: the small government types, the pro-business supporters, and the libertarian cadre. The larger problem, though, was with the selective use of evidence. He tended to put it this way: the GOP never was that pro-business, as with Reagan's tax increases; and yet the success under Clinton shows that their dogmatic tax cuts work.

A lot to disentangle there. I'm grateful myself that Reagan's rather nonintellectual basis for his ideology allowed him to do things like that (or talk with Gorachev), but it can't be used to put a politically acceptable veneer on what did not work one bit. I mean not work as a mainstream economic model and not work regardless of the overall economy for most Americans. Right now, of course, both the American economy and most Americans are in deep trouble.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

For the record, the modern libertarian is basically a Soviet Capitalist. Nothing they say has ever worked, anywhere, nor will it, so they repeat it again, forcefully. Brilliant, guys. Next time we want to create a classless society based on how much money you have, we'll call you.

Well realistically it's difficult to avoid. Libertarians are of course going to hate the book and presume it's all wrong.

Discussing economics with a Libertarian is like discussing science with a fundamentalist kook. Every suggestion of an empirical process will be dismissed with inviable hands and other quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo.

Having said that, I've found the substantial conversation of his book quite interesting and have added it to my list.

Funny thing is, I once put this to a Libertarian, and he had an explanation.

They weren't the "right kind of people."

Seems that not everyone is right for Libertarianism. You have to be a special sort of (white) person, raised with the right (white) culture and (white) values.

Libertarianism turns out to be for the elect.

Reminds me of Communism. Communism was for everyone, but you know, you couldn't just go there. You had to become the 'right' sort of people.

Then it would work.

Libertarianism has a certain intellectual appeal, no doubt, but, given that every society of more than 150 or so people over the past 5,000 years of human history has found it necessary to establish some kind of government and that these governments consistently increase in size and complexity with the size of the population governed, one apparently cannot be both a libertarian and an empiricist.

"Intellectual?"

Ah hell, there's nothing "intellectual" about a "me first" philosophy drawn up by a celebrated author of bodice ripper type fiction.

She should have stuck with fiction.

It just goes to show what happens when people take themselves too seriously.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Lol. Well he's right in a sense. Once we've all transmuted ourselves to pure sentient energy so as to freely float about the universe, clearly we'll all be libertarians.

How did three raters manage to give this dumb, off-the-cuff remark a "5"?

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is NOT a libertarian society! And no libertarian that I know argues as an anarchist.

If someone wants to initiate an argument distinguishing Objectivist Libertarians and Consequentialist Libertarians, fine. But let's keep the comments above the level of "everything I know I learned in kindergarten."

What percent ot the GDP do you advocate redistributing? Do you advocate confiscating assets of those who did not play fair as well as their income, as did Mugabe in Zimbabwe?

Check the individuals doing the rating, enough said.

Yes, indeed, they all undoubtably outclass your own intellect by a factor of 10 or more.

One thing you libertarian leaning dimwits have in common is your shallow commentary and your sophomoric taunting. Oh, and did I mention the condescending (without substance to back it up) arrogance? Oh my, yes, it's there in bushelfuls.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Is it true that the CATO Institute has a small grotto where they all go to pray to Saint Ayn Rand and receive her divine guidance?

Terry

I don't think there is anything at all "wrong with attempting to equalize opportunities around the world zs well as in this country?" In fact, I admire a principled commitment to it and I admire an intellectually consistent argument.

The issue I have is with members of the American left that seek to establish that redistributive policies within the US are a moral imperative. If they were a moral imperative, then the propositions would be true globally, not merely within the US. And given that the data shows that the US middle class is very well off by global standards, so it would then be morally obligated, by the moral hypothesis, to turn over some of its wealth to people in sub-saharan africa and bangladesh etc. So I look for intellectual consistency and not merely self-justifying rhetoric that covers up an ultimately self-centered policy of resdistribution from one American class that the proponent is not part of to a class that the proponents is a part of by saying "they're immoral" or "they're amoral" implying that the speakeer is either "moral" or "more moral". Ultimately, I believe the redistributive argument made by leftist members of the American polity is as self-justifying as they say the nonredistributive argument of libertarians is. If you or any other proponent of redistribution happens to be redistributing your wealth globally, God bless you and I commend you.

Tom

I agree very much with the point of view expressed in your first paragraph. If extremists would limit themselves to debating those propositions, we would have a more civilized society. Where society suffers is when citizens' differences about the amount of disparity become stated as "moral" issues or characterized as "war."

I would also point out that your third paragraph is to some extent consistent with my argument and calls into question one of the arguments Jonathan invokes above in response to Wilkinson, i.e., that such (unquantified) factors justify a redistributive regime. Do I agree they are nontrivial? Of course. But that really just restates the question to be, what range is nontrivial, because redistribution is a quantitative act. So, to carry it out, one has to establish quantitative measurements for what members of a society will keep, surrender and some receive, and then explain why such measurements should be adopted. Income is already redistributed in the US in a nontrivial way - e.g., many upper income people pay an effective tax rate in the range of 45% by the time all taxes are taken into account, especially if they are self-employed, whereas many people at low levels of income pay little tax and may in fact receive money back pursuant to the earned income tax credit coupled with other benefit programs like social security and medicaid. So I and many other people who are successful without having inherited any wealth think the burden is on those who claim that the status of being successful and paying 45% or thereabouts of one's income to various governments is somehow "unjust" to state exactly what would be the just amount of wealth for the succesful to retain and to justify that proposed regime against others with an intellectually coherent argument instead of resorting to generalizations, cliches and demonizing rhetoric.

Income is already redistributed in the US in a nontrivial way - e.g., many upper income people pay an effective tax rate in the range of 45% by the time all taxes are taken into account, especially if they are self-employed, whereas many people at low levels of income pay little tax and may in fact receive money back pursuant to the earned income tax credit coupled with other benefit programs like social security and medicaid.

I would argue that this statement is substantially untruthful in certain respects.

While it is true that the income tax payable at lower levels of income is much smaller than for higher levels of income, this is not the only tax to be considered.

Poorer people pay sales taxes, various value added taxes, levies, license fees, property taxes, workers comp and unemployment insurance, social security and payroll taxes. These taxes are regressive or non-progressive, and thus, the lower your income, the higher a proportion of your income are paid to these taxes.

So, proportionately, the tax bite off a paycheck for a working poor, working class or middle class person is quite hefty. The reduction in income tax is balanced substantially by these other forms of regressive 'tax' - payroll, social security, workers comp, etc.

The dream of working poor to middle class is to own a home. This carries with it property and education taxes, which take a substantial cut of annual income. Even for those who do not own property, they pay property taxes indirectly through their rents.

Finally, what little disposeable income is left must be expended on necessities of life - food, clothing, electricity, utilities, etc., all of which are subject to taxes, usually sales taxes and similar levies. Arguably, the rich and well off live better and thus pay more sales taxes... but that dodges your own point the proportion of total income paid as sales taxes by the poor is stunningly greater than for the rich.

Finally, there are various license and user fees and tariffs which are essentially 'pay as you go' taxes on government service, which essentially exclude the poor, or which, if paid, constitute a dramatically larger proportion of income than for wealthier people.

While it is true that the poorest receive specific income support programs, it is also true that the rich receive their own forms of benefits from the state, or a larger share of universal benefits or greater degree of benefit from the state.

While theoretically, you could have a person who pays no taxes such a person would be unemployed, homeless, and dependent on direct handouts for his very survival. Hardly an enviable lifestyle.

It can be proven by calculations that lowering taxes increases the rate of GDP (or is it GNP?) growth. Similarly, it was proven that a beetle cannot fly: too heavy, wings too small. One can prove a lot with crappy calculations.

I think that within a large margin, it matters much less how much money government is collecting as compared with: what does government do with the money.

Mark Weinberg: saying "Israel right or wrong" is a pinnacle of anti-Semitism. Right, of course she is right!