Powered by TypePad

« Richardson Out As VP Candidate | Main | Yankees Sweep The Sox! »

July 02, 2004


Patrick R. Sullivan

Well, the professor has recently enlightened everyone with this nugget of Phd arcana:

"The shares of the tax burden add up to 100%."

Apparently in the belief that it thus doesn't matter what the size of each quintile's share is (since it is now inconvenient to notice that the highest ones pay not only the highest share, but, since Reagan, an increasing one).

I'm assuming that the rationale for ignoring that is the Krugmanesque claim: "Yeah, but what about payroll tax". Ignoring that the payroll tax is REBATED (eventually, if you live long enough)via a formula that disadvantages higher income "contributors" (to use a term popularized by Prof. DeLong's former employer).

Paul Zrimsek

Notice that the shift in the burden is now from current taxpayers to future taxpayers-- not, as before, from the rich to the middle class. I hereby claim credit for the rowback, and begin to understand why Luskin spends so much time hounding poor Dan Okrent. What a feeling of power!

Patrick R. Sullivan

Again, Paul, you've shown yourself to be the doppelganger of Albert Brooks in "Broadcast News"; you say it here, and it comes out there.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Btw, speaking of Krugman, Harry Truman must be rolling over in his grave at the latest juggling act of a non-one-armed economist:


"though [Fahrenheit 9-11] has yet to be caught in any major factual errors"

Stays in the same air with:

"The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true.'


"Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true."

Just as long as the don't catch on, we're in the clear.

The comments to this entry are closed.