"Yeah...for the wealthy.
That first-year econ student should also be able to tell you if the top rates declined, and the wealthy's portion increased, that's because they started controlling much, MUCH more of the wealth."
The shift in the tax burden was unintentional. It only happened because aggregate wealth in the United States increased. And it wasn't the old money who were getting richer, as this time period was also marked by the emergence of the Nouveau riche; those entrepreneurs that grew wealthy by creating new goods and services for consumers. So, you had a relatively new class of wealthy taxpayers that had not been present previously, and given that this wealth was concentrated amongst the hyper-productive income earners in the top their, in was in that direction that the burden shifted.
It wasn't, as you suggest, a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. It was the creation of new wealth that allowed this phenomenon to take place.
"Link?"
It was in the February 27th, 2009 issue of "The Economist." Here is the link if you have a premium content subscription:
"www.economist.com"
The Article itself was called Burgeoning Bourgeois:
New Middle Classes in Emerging Markets. Parts of it are referenced at several different blog sites. Here's one with a graph copied from the economist showing the global middle class as a percentage of total population:
"paul.kedrosky.com"
"Yes, it should be obvious. The income gap had become so extreme as to be scandalous."
Here's the deal, in a free society those that produce the wealth will naturally benefit from it. If I invent a new process or widget that society deems to be valuable, they will give me money in return for providing that good or service. The only reason there is any income gap at all is that people, acting as rational consumers, value some units of land, labor, or capital more than others. It is a natural function of a free society. Society could correct this phenomenon, on it's own. If it cared to. the problem is that for many it would result in a substantial decrease in standard of living. After all, increased labor costs would be passed on to consumers, who would see the purchasing power of each dollar decline.
For someone who has gone to college, or learned a trade, or just gutted it out, having your wealth confiscated by the government and given to those that failed to out forth the effort is cruel and oppressive. It also serves as a disincentive to those that do accrue wealth as a function of providing the goods and services we consume. Perhaps we would be better off if the government simply banned innovation and creativity, as it is those things that generally lead to wealth creation.
"Clinton had a lot to do with what happened. If nothing else, he concentrated on the economy like few Presidents, and agreed to pare the deficit to nearly zero."
Personally, I regard Clinton as one of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever. Did the republican controlled congress have anything to do with the prosperity? Maybe. But if Clinton were truly as far left as his opponents would have liked people to believe, he really could have fucked up what truly was a financial wet dream. I was too young at the time to remember, but I don't recall Clinton as having the post-Marxist smackings common within the current administration, and with the left in general.
