Go to PDF Version | Go to Recent Issues
To save time in the future, you may select one of the preferences below. You may update your eIBD preferences at any time by going into My IBD and selecting Update Your eIBD Preferences.
Set Web-Based Version as Default Set PDF Version as Default Set Recent Issues as Default
Get QuoteSearch Site
Daily Graphs Online
The widely misunderstood Andrew Mellon. ASSOCIATED PRESS View Enlarged Image
Sowell on "Tax Cuts for the Rich": Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Second Of Three Parts
The arguments of the proponents and opponents of tax-rate reductions have been arguments about two fundamentally different things:
(1) The distribution of existing incomes and existing tax liabilities.
(2) Incentives to increase incomes by reducing tax rates, so as to get individuals and institutions to take their money out of tax shelters and invest it in the economy.
Proponents and opponents of tax-rate reductions not only had different arguments, they were arguments about very different things, and the two arguments largely went past each other untouched.
Empirical evidence on what happened to the economy in the wake of those tax cuts in four different administrations over a span of more than 80 years has also been largely ignored by those opposed to what they call "tax cuts for the rich."
Confusion between reducing tax rates on individuals and reducing tax revenues received by the government has run through much of these discussions over these years.
Famed historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., for example, said that although Andrew Mellon, secretary of the treasury from 1921 to 1932, advocated balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, he "inconsistently" sought "reduction in tax rates."
Nor was Schlesinger the only highly regarded historian to perpetuate economic confusion between tax rates and tax revenues. Today, widely used textbooks by various well-known historians have continued to misstate what was advocated in the 1920s and what the actual consequences were.
According to the textbook "These United States" by Irwin Unger, Mellon, "a rich Pittsburgh industrialist," persuaded Congress to "reduce income tax rates at the upper-income levels while leaving those at the bottom untouched."
Thus "Mellon won further victories for his drive to shift more of the tax burden from the high-income earners to the middle and wage-earning classes."
But hard data show that, in fact, both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net income was no higher than $25,000 went down between 1921 and 1929, while both the amount and the proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were between $50,000 and $100,000 went up — and the amount and proportion of taxes paid by those whose net incomes were over $100,000 went up even more sharply.
Another widely used textbook, co-authorized by a number of distinguished historians, two of whom won Pulitzer Prizes, said of Mellon:
Implicit in the approach of both academic and media critics of what they call "tax cuts for the rich" and a "trickle-down theory" is a zero-sum conception of the economy, where the benefits of some come at the expense of others. That those with such a zero-sum conception of the economy often show ...
At various time and places, particular individuals have argued that existing tax rates are so high that the government could collect more tax revenues if it lowered those tax rates, because the changed incentives would lead to more economic activity, resulting in more tax revenues out of rising ...
Last month's unemployment figures shocked by being worse than expected by every single economist surveyed. Unemployment will likely stay surprisingly high because government is winning its long war of attrition against the primary driver of employment — small business. Small businesses are ...
Some of us called it the man-cession. In the deep recession that lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, many more men than women lost their jobs. The imbalance was huge. The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a decline of 5.4 million jobs for ...
The Great Recession's aftermath roiled state budgets and gave new urgency to questions about the size and scope of government — how much to tax, how much to spend and how much power to cede to unions. The answers lie in the movement of people across state lines — Americans voting with ...
What was true of yesterday is true to today. The top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all federal income taxes and that has gone up 2% since 2000. The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes. The top The bottom 50% only pay 3% while a growing group among them are actually getting money back. The IRS is functioning as another in a myriad of welfare programs offered at federal, state, county, and city levels.
Agree with TexasMan, what would it take to have the administration and executive staff / appointees read this. As far as the current writings of history via well known scholars it makes a parent wonder if all that college tution for your kids are really getting a fair and balanced education worthy of getting a job.. I have my doubts.
Would that we could get BHO and his ilk to read this! Dr. Sowell should be the Sec. of the Treasury now, and hopefully will beginning JAN2013.
truth does not stand a chance with those with a political agenda.
Demagoguery vs. Reality.
To participate in Community areas, please Sign In or Register
Register
A few signs can alert you to corporate fraud.
Read Full Article »
