I also read David Leonhardt's piece in the NYT but thought it only decent. The bits surrounding Bruce Bartlett's "conversion" are illuminating. To be sure, Bartlett is a fascinating character; he is one of those few people that seems to care more about seeking the truth than about being right.
Some other parts of Leonhardt's piece however, left me nonplussed. Berchmans highlights one of those passages that left me scratching my head. For one, why does Leonhardt focus only on federal taxes in his effort to debunk a tenet of supply-side economics? He must realize that if the total tax burden were taken into account -- including state and local taxes -- his story rings hollow. In fact, according to a 2007 Heritage Foundation study, the total tax burden has risen steadily since the end of WWII.
So when he says that planned entitlement spending by the Obama administration must be paid for by raising federal taxes, "and history suggests that’s O.K.," he's wrong. History does not suggest a lick about our current situation.
And notice the little rhetorical device Leonhardt employs at the end of Berchmans' excerpt. He has us believe that "a century ago, federal taxes equaled just a few percent of G.D.P. The country wasn’t better off than it is today." Well, what does that even mean? How do we go about trying to disprove a vague notion like, "better off?" Cross-century comparisons do us very little good.
Leonhardt marshals some compelling evidence -- Bartlett's supposed conversion, federal tax rates in line with historical norms, we're somehow "better off" -- to create his narrative that higher tax rates are needed. Yet like all tall tales, a lot of the facts get left behind.
Some other parts of Leonhardt's piece however, left me nonplussed. Berchmans highlights one of those passages that left me scratching my head. For one, why does Leonhardt focus only on federal taxes in his effort to debunk a tenet of supply-side economics? He must realize that if the total tax burden were taken into account -- including state and local taxes -- his story rings hollow. In fact, according to a 2007 Heritage Foundation study, the total tax burden has risen steadily since the end of WWII.
So when he says that planned entitlement spending by the Obama administration must be paid for by raising federal taxes, "and history suggests that’s O.K.," he's wrong. History does not suggest a lick about our current situation.
And notice the little rhetorical device Leonhardt employs at the end of Berchmans' excerpt. He has us believe that "a century ago, federal taxes equaled just a few percent of G.D.P. The country wasn’t better off than it is today." Well, what does that even mean? How do we go about trying to disprove a vague notion like, "better off?" Cross-century comparisons do us very little good.
Leonhardt marshals some compelling evidence -- Bartlett's supposed conversion, federal tax rates in line with historical norms, we're somehow "better off" -- to create his narrative that higher tax rates are needed. Yet like all tall tales, a lot of the facts get left behind.
That Tax Foundation link you sent -- that the total tax burden has risen -- doesn't prove your point, unless I'm reading the table wrong. The tax rate in the left column seems unchanged, usually under or around 10 percent.
ReplyDeleteThe Tax Foundation link was removed. While nominal tax rates have remained steady over the past couple of years, real incomes have remained stagnant or declined, thereby pushing the total tax burden higher, as described by the Heritage Foundation link.
ReplyDelete