In the Sunday Washington Post, a variety of economic types are given the opportunity to sound off on President Obama’s tax proposals. Dr. Mankiw, who’s often appeared in these posts, is, unsurprisingly, unenthused, though he notes politely that the tax rates Obama is proposing aren’t really that bad. He concludes his thoughts with the following slow burn:
“President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes at the top to further cut taxes at the bottom has one rationale: using the coercive power of the state to “spread the wealth around.” In addition to the obvious disincentive effects, the policy raises deep philosophical questions. If one citizen of a nation can lay claim to the wealth of his more productive neighbor, shouldn’t poor nations have the right to lay claim to the resources of richer nations such as the United States?”
But wasn’t the U.S. tax system, even under Reagan, redistributive? Then wouldn’t Reagan’s policies raise the same “deep philosophical questions”? Does the good doctor really believe that if the U.S. “spreads the wealth around” among U.S. citizens we will have no valid argument if a bunch of Third World types show up and demand their cut? Has he never noticed that it is the “coercive power of the state,” that, by defending private property, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing copyrights and patents, that creates the entire free enterprise system? And has he never noticed that, when it comes to foreign aggression, it is almost invariably the rich and powerful who steal from the poor and weak, rather than the other way around?
“Deep philosophical questions”! “Deep philosophical questions”! Oh, doctor! When you aren’t being a first-rate economist, you are such a deep load of lying crap!
