"I accuse Weekly Standard editor Chris Caldwell of trying to be interesting. He claims the Bush tax cut represents a "dead loss" for middle class Americans, because what they gain in child tax credits ($800 for a family of four) they lose in the "relative wealth" race with the rich:
The middle class, in certain circumstances, must compete against the rich as if in a luxury market - not just for luxury goods but for the staples of life. What do middle-class parents want for their children? A house in a neighbourhood with a good public school system, orthodontia, a college education, maybe even (heaven forbid) a kidney transplant. The prices of all these commodities will be bid up (and by considerably more than $800) when top earners start getting their annual five-figure windfalls.
Interesting! But if it's relative wealth we're worried about, whatever changes might be wrought by Bush's tax cut are minor compared with the inegalitarian trends in the underlying economy that are increasingly rewarding skill, education, and luck. Why not tamp down those trends -- and their consequences -- too? Is this a road Caldwell wants to travel down?
If he does, he should maybe not worry about who is "unconservative." Once you start fretting about relative wealth -- i.e. money equality -- more than prosperity, it's not easy to see where to stop. Caldwell could say he'll stop whenever "the working class is capable of imagining it can join the rich." But it's hard to see why they can imagine it today but won't be able to if the proposed Bush tax cut passes. (The estate tax repeal is another matter.) Weren't they able to imagine it in the far more inegalitarian early decades of the 20th century? ... If I were sure -- and I'm not -- that the proposed Bush cut really would a) stimulate the economy and b) prevent corporate shenanigans involving retained earnings, I'd be for it even if it also disproportionately increased the wealth of the rich. After all, we've learned that the best thing you can do for the poor, and for poor neighborhoods, is to run a hot economy with a tight labor market at the bottom that pushes up wages. (Does the middle class also lose ground in Caldwell's bidding war if the poor get richer? He could make a plausible argument. But should we care? It would definitely be good for social equality.) ... P.S.: Orthodontia? Are the rich really bidding up the price of braces? ... "
No comments:
Post a Comment