The Myth that Tax Cuts Don't Work

My piece is up at the Daily Caller.

It begins:

Despite the preponderance of contrary evidence, myths persist that tax cuts primarily benefit “the rich” and have no discernible impact on economic growth.

Months ago, for instance, Hillary Clinton charged that “slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that.”

She’s right that it hasn’t worked, but she failed to mention that it’s also never happened. The tired “tax cuts for the rich” canard is disproven by the 1920s, the 1960s, the 1980s and the 2000s, when tax rates were reduced for all—and especially low—income groups.

Read the full piece here.

What is economic mobility?

Tim wrote a thoughtful rebuttal to my posts on economic mobility, but it seems we’re at least partly talking past one another.

One of Tim’s central arguments is that some of the studies I highlighted miss the point he has in mind—whether “someone from a poor or lower-income family has the same or better chance of attaining such a position than in an earlier generation”—and instead reflect the fact that part-time high school and college workers rise to higher income brackets over time.

The economic spending fallacy

One cannot help but marvel at the pervasiveness of the misguided idea that spending is good for the economy.

The other day, for instance, an acquaintance lamented that his weekly restaurant expenses were hard on his pocket book, but he then quickly rejoined that at least his lavish dining habits boosted the economy. Such thinking is hardly uncommon. Indeed most cultural and media elite attribute upticks in economic growth to surges in spending and the opposite to reductions in spending. Presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders has gone so far as to suggest $1 trillion in public infrastructure spending over five years partly to “help the economy.”

On its face this thinking appears to make sense, but when examined it does not wash. Consider the following scenario.

America does not have an economic inequality problem

Language manipulation is nothing new in politics, but describing economic differences as “economic inequality” is a linguistic act we should reconsider. It not only falsely suggests unique unfairness in economic life, but the notion itself rests on an unfounded assumption.

No aspect of life—economic or otherwise—escapes unfairness. Height, strength, birth place and natural talents are all largely determined by the luck of the draw. More than that, chance is at least partly responsible for our discovering our talents. While luck first blessed Michael Jordan with basketball prowess, he was twice lucky for deciding to pick up a basketball in the first place (and thrice lucky for being born into an environment that allowed him to do so). Yet, we resist describing the unfairness in our natural height differences or in the talent gap between Michael Jordan and the rest of us as “inequality.”

The "Trickle-Down" Zombie

The New York Times's Paul Krugman routinely decries what he calls “zombie ideas”—those that survive despite overwhelming contrary evidence. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – Ma.) should take note. Her recent attack on conservative tax policy is one that has long lost its battle against facts.

On Wednesday, the senator averred:

The Republicans have a pretty simple philosophy: they say if those at the top have more — more power for Wall Street players to do whatever they want and more money for tax cuts than somehow they can be counted on to build the economy for everyone else. Well, we tried it for 30 years and it didn’t work. In fact the consequences were nearly catastrophic.

Why the Stimulus Failed, Part Two

I recently explained why government stimulus spending must fail. Tim contested my argument, but I will show why it stands.

The basic flaw with stimulus spending is that, in order to spend a dollar into the economy, government must remove a dollar from the economy, which renders spending a zero-sum transfer of resources.

Tim challenged these basics by asserting that not all money is contributing to economic activity, so utilizing “idle” dollars for government expenditure would avoid the zero-sum critique and raise national income. There are three reasons this is wrong.