“Those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions”

An interesting piece at the WSJ by Alan Reynolds:

IncomeEqualityA recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007.”

This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left’s obsession with inequality. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, for example, said this “jaw-dropping report” shows “why the Occupy Wall Street protests have struck such a nerve.” The New York Times opined that the study is “likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.”

But here’s a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.”

No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.

The larger truth is that recessions always destroy wealth and small business incomes at the top. Perhaps those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce “inequality.” Of course, the same recessions also increase poverty and unemployment.

There’s much more and the concluding paragraphs are worth your time.  Something the 99% ought to be  looking at with fresh eyes.

Fat chance of that happening.

When Liars Figure
What's Sex Got To Do With It?
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • Anonymous

    The 99% still parrot the ‘what’s fair’ shit.  I’ve yet to see their definition of “fair”.  I’ve got a very simple definition of what I think is “fair”.  If you’re in the 47% who pay no income tax, YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE.  Seems “fair” to me.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      In the early days of our country, most of the states limited the vote to property owners, since they paid the taxes. 

  • herddog505

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

    I really can’t see why pulling down somebody else helps me (or anybody else) one iota.  What good would it do me for Uncle Sugar to take more money from Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?

  • Anonymous

    One of the many things that really irritates me about the OWS crap is how their 1% / 99% has crept into mainstream conversation. Probably the only thing they have managed to do well as a movement. 

    • jim_m

      whatever.

      9-9-9 has also crept into the conversation and it’s going nowhere too.  “Hope & Change” is still in the vernacular but it won’t deliver either.

      Lefty slogans are empty.  If there were real ideas behind them other than class envy and a desire to confiscate the goods of people who work hard to acquire material success, these slogans might have real power.

      As it is all the left has are these empty slogans and the failed cult of personality that is obama.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        Then why does the movement scare people like Frank Luntz?

        • Anonymous

          Like zombies they are slow and stupid,but very destructive.

          • http://mcx-today.blogspot.com/ MCX Today

            i agree with u …

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

          Luntz is a sissy.  The rest of us are prepared to defend ourselves, our families, and our property against destructive mobs.  OWS has no staying power because it has no message other than “we want more free stuff ’cause some people are rich!”

        • jim_m

          Then why does the movement scare people like Frank Luntz?

          Because it represents the left’s willingness to achieve their goals through force.  OWS was a demonstration that the left’s interest in participation in the democratic process ends when they lose at the ballot box. 

          obama and the dems enthusiastically backed OWS because they saw an opportunity to overturn the democratic process.  OWS was a crisis they could capitalize upon.

          Any doubt that the dems want to overturn the democratic process should have been dispelled when Gov Purdue of NC suggested that obama suspend elections and called for people to “get behind” that suggestion.  There was a lack of any voices on the left saying that her idea was out of line.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            …  Force?  Really?

            Getting your ass kicked by a militarized police force is a sign of force?

            Further, the fact that the OWS has moved to protesting the Democrats should tell that the movement isn’t just in the Democrat’s back pocket.

          • jim_m

            Excuse me if I equate the OWS with the mess in Madison, WI where union backed thugs occupied the state house for weeks. assaulting lawmakers and defending illegal and antidemocratic actions by the dems. 

            A lot of OWS stuff was backed by unions and if you think that the unions are anti dem then you’re a fool.  Sure there were some aspects of the OWS that were marginally anti dem,but only marginally so.  The OWS crowd will always throw its allegiance in with the dems before anyone else.

            Lastly, when you have Bill Ayers, obama’s ghost writer, officemate and buddy who helped him launch his political career giving lectures to OWS groups on protest and resistance it’s a little hard to say that the dems don’t have any influence on the group.

          • jim_m

            Just to be clear:  When dem lawmakers with former Senator Feingold of WI are getting in front of the roiting mob and declaring that “It isn’t over until we win”, they are sending a clear message to their followers that they do not intend in any way to be confined to our democratic system. 

            The point of the Madison protests and those of the OWS is that the left no longer cares about election results and does not plan to be thwarted by something as meaningless to them as the will of the people.

            Why else would a sitting dem governor suggest publicly that we should suspend elections if it isn;t an idea being actively discussed in dem circles as an alternative and realistic means of retaining power?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Wisconsin has a lot more problems than JUST OWS.  This is the same state that has a governor who wants to have the protestors charged for having pepper spray used against them.

            Then let’s not forget how the idea of collective bargaining was effectively destroyed because of the anti-Union bill this February. 

            Also, looking at a view of Feingold, I have to question where he’s wrong per se.  The problem is far bigger than both parties.  The problem lies in Citizens United allowing unlimited campaign donations to fund campaigns and allow us merely to see the corruption going on in both parties.   All OWS seems to do is point out the hypocrisies of those in political power.

            And sure, I’ll give you that the Dems are the first party the OWS crowd will go to.  But who in the Republican party didn’t dismiss OWS as hippy wearing, freeloaders who just want free stuff?  That list is few and far between.

            Judging from the list of people being arrested for protesting, it’s also wrong.

          • jim_m

            The problem lies in Citizens United allowing unlimited campaign
            donations to fund campaigns and allow us merely to see the corruption
            going on in both parties.

            Seriously?  So you believe that political speech should be limited to those people the government considers fit  to have it?

            Do you realize that the campaign finance law that Citizens United struck down allowed unlimited donations from unions?  So are you saying that like most hypocritical and ignorant leftists that you think it is OK for your friends to have unlimited political speech but that it is dangerous for everyone else to have the same rights?

            Screw you.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            So you believe that political speech should be limited to those people the government considers fit  to have it?

            I believe the amount of money used to bribe politicians has a very large influence on political debates.  Also, I would love to see a change to our political voting system to ensure that a minority vote doesn’t equal a new president that’s worse than the last one.

             So are you saying that like most hypocritical and ignorant leftists that you think it is OK for your friends to have unlimited political speech but that it is dangerous for everyone else to have the same rights?

            Nope.  I’m saying that we need actual political reform in the  limiting of money given to politicians as Larry Lessig exposes with his video and book.  I noticed that political donations have to be disclosed to show us the corruption going on in federal government.  We need laws that allow smaller donations and no anonymous donations.  This ensures a more competitive list of candidates instead of 5/7 people endorsing torture or supporting the current president who’s doing an atrocious job of protecting whistleblowers, keeping up with civil rights, and provoking wars in other countries.

          • jim_m

            I don’t think that you get anywhere by trying to limit donations.  The law is pretty solid that you cannot.  But I think the answer is that we need to make all donations public, without anonymity, and they should be available as a searchable database accessible on the internet.

            Then even if you cannot eliminate influence you have accountability.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

            You really believe they are protesting the Dems?  They are adding a few jabs just for cover but it falls short of believability.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Please.  Obama’s speech falls short of the mark when he speaks like he has a backbone during voting season but has the entire Goldman Sachs CEO line in the Treasury department.  I’m critical of the ICE domain seizures, done by Hollywood, who vote Democrat.

            Also, the Secure Communities Program, which Boehner and most of the Republican backed Congress supports, is spearheaded by Obama and causing him to lose the Latino vote.

            There’s plenty to protest and speak out about this coming voting season. Namely, how Obama and most Dems have been nothing more than spineless bloodsuckers who take from the cream just as much, if not more, than Republicans.

  • Anonymous

    Until they can apply a number to it, ‘fair’ is meaningless.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    I don’t think that you get anywhere by trying to limit donations.  The law is pretty solid that you cannot.  But I think the answer is that we need to make all donations public, without anonymity, and they should be available as a searchable database accessible on the internet.

    Then even if you cannot eliminate influence you have accountability.

    We have that.  Maplight, Opensecrets, even Wikileaks exposes the donations and behind the scenes actions of Congress.  But as Lessig points out in his talk, you’re able to see the muck that Congress is getting us into.  What can you do about it?

    So far, only LA has come out to fight corporate personhood by supporting a Constitutional Amendment ending their personhood.

  • Constitution First

    The best lies are concocted with statistics.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE