By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Eli Broad has written a column for the New York Times
that manages to be wrong at almost every opportunity it has to be wrong —
economically, politically, grammatically, etc. It’s really quite something.
Broad writes: “I’ve come to realize that no amount of
philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing
most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and
electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic
prosperity we call the American dream.” There’s a word missing from that
sentence, also some thought: Do you know what factory workers, teachers,
electricians,
and farmers
all have in common? Above-average incomes. Perhaps those suffering from the
cruelty of inequality are those . . . entrepreneurs and business owners he
cites, but I doubt it. If you go back and look at the big bite the Great
Recession took out of median household incomes, the chart pretty strongly
suggests the problem wasn’t being a farmer (median income $68,000 a year) but
being unemployed.
Back to Broad: “But even in cities like my adopted
hometown, Los Angeles, where many of these [progressive anti-inequality]
policies have been enacted, they have not adequately addressed the crisis. Our
country must do something bigger and more radical, starting with the most
unfair area of federal policy: our tax code.” That’s a familiar formulation: Progressivism
fails — solution: more of the same! Broad does not seem to be aware of the
fact that that “unfair” federal tax code he complains about already is
enormously progressive — by many measures the most
progressive in the developed world.
And then on to the vague, hand-waving horsepucky and
preening:
It’s time to start talking
seriously about a wealth tax.
Some will say I’m calling for the
populist masses to take out the pitchforks and take down the titans of Wall
Street. Some will say it’s just too difficult to execute. Others will call it a
flight of fancy.
Don’t get me wrong: I am not
advocating an end to the capitalist system that’s yielded some of the greatest
gains in prosperity and innovation in human history. I simply believe it’s time
for those of us with great wealth to commit to reducing income inequality,
starting with the demand to be taxed at a higher rate than everyone else.
“Some will say” is almost always a cowardly formulation
employed by people who do not want to seriously address counter-arguments. Who
says? Who says what, exactly? Mightn’t those who are interesting in “talking
seriously” about a wealth tax address that? Shouldn’t they at least consider
the cases of the countries that have enacted wealth taxes and abandoned them as
destructive and unworkable? That’s
what happened in Sweden, the beau idéal of American progressives.
(Sweden, that right-wing hellhole, doesn’t even have an inheritance tax!) On
the other hand, well-governed Switzerland does have some wealth taxes. Any
thoughts about why one model was a failure and one wasn’t? No?
Oh, “some will say.”
Also, Broad is conflating income with wealth,
and making a very large assumption that the incomes of the middle classes will
be raised by appropriating the savings of the wealthy. He does not bother
attempting to establish a mechanism by which that may be expected to happen.
Climate change, maybe.
More: “This does not mean I support paying higher taxes
without requiring government to be transparent, accountable and equitable about
how it spends the revenue, particularly for health care, public education and
other programs critical to social and economic mobility.”
Okay, I’ll wait.
And more: “The enormous challenges we face as a nation —
the climate crisis” — which is going to be addressed through a wealth tax? —
“the shrinking middle class” — the middle class is
not shrinking — “skyrocketing housing” — in progressive-run cities that
have created artificial housing shortages, largely under the pretext of
addressing “inequality” — “and health care costs” — well —
“and many more — are a stark call to action.”
(That isn’t really what “stark” means.)
And this: “Currently people who have stocks and other
investments that appreciate in value — usually people of means — are taxed at
lower rates and are allowed to defer taxes.” Well . . . they pay 20 percent
capital-gains tax on income that’s already been taxed at the 21 percent
corporate rate — and these investments may very well have been made out of
income that’s already been taxed at the personal rate. And most stocks aren’t
owned directly by individuals at all — about 80 percent of the market value of
U.S. stocks are held by institutions, insurance companies and pension
funds prominent among them. About 20 percent of the wealth of the middle class
is held in pension funds. It is true that these pension-fund beneficiaries tend
to be wealthier, but somehow I do not think that those California
school administrators earning $200,000-and-up a year are the plutocrats
we’re talking about here.
And more: “I’m not an economist but I have watched my
wealth grow exponentially thanks to federal policies that have cut my tax rates
while wages for regular people have stagnated and poverty rates have
increased.”
And more: “A wealth tax can start to address the economic
inequality eroding the soul of our country’s strength.” Seriously — who is this
guy’s ghostwriter? Strength doesn’t have a soul. That doesn’t even work as
goofy figurative language.
Broad is the founder of KB Homes. Here’s his hometown
newspaper: “As was the case with many builders, the early 2000s were quite
profitable, fueled in part by easy-to-obtain subprime mortgages. Business
declined quickly after the banking system nearly collapsed under the weight of
bad loans and foreclosures. . . . KB Home’s longtime leader, Bruce Karatz,
resigned amid an investigation into the company’s backdating of employee stock
options. A federal jury later convicted Karatz of making false statements about
the stock options.”
Oh, by all means, let’s tap this brain trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment