Thursday, April 15, 2010

The conservative case against higher taxes on the rich

Pithily taken down by Jon Chait.


Dave Daniels said...

In what way does he take down Donahue? He doesn't address the points raised in the article he quotes at all. His attitude seems to be "suck it, rich boy". (And since when does having a salary of $250,000 make you rich?)

John Althouse Cohen said...

He gives three of Donahue's points and addresses each one of them. I know it's snarky and glib (that's why the first word in the body of my post is "pithily"), but that doesn't discredit his arguments.

According to Chait, we don't how much Donahue makes; Chait just infers that it's at least $250,000 since his federal taxes were raised. Also, the thrust of Donahue's piece (which I admittedly haven't read since it's behind a paywall) is that he proudly admits he's making more money than most people. So I think it's fair to call him rich for the purposes of the argument he's making in the article.

Anyway, I don't know why you don't think making $250,000 a year = rich. It's several times the average American adult's salary. If you're making as much as 5 average adults combined, I think you qualify as "rich."

Jason (the commenter) said...

I agree with Dave (and a little with JAC).

Jon Chat didn't understand Donahue's point of view. Chat's implication, that the article is about a rich man's fantasy, is especially spurious. There are plenty of middle and lower class people who respond to Donahue's way of thinking.

To try and get a new job, move to another part of the country for work, or start your own business, is a big deal for anyone. A lot of the time it's easier to stay where you are and make do with what you have. When you hear about the government taxing people, even if it is "the rich", it makes it that much harder to motivate yourself to take chances and make the changes that can lead to a better life.

When you hear the people who have "made it" complain, it's bad for everyone.