I have a couple of cameos in a new left-leaning documentary film, Race to the Bottom. I shared a clip two day ago with my views on corporate tax and the Laffer Curve.
Today, here’s what I said about the left’s mistaken views on inequality.
The fundamental problem is that I think some of our friends on the left are primarily motivated by disdain for the rich.
Indeed, their envy and resentment is so strong that they’re happy to support policies that hurt the poor, so long as the rich suffer a disproportionate amount of harm.
Consider this sarcastic visual.
I hope this visual greatly exaggerates the problem, but I’ve previously shared substantive research suggesting that the folks on the left are fixated on punishing success.
That agenda does not produce good results.
In a thorough article for Reason, David Henderson of the Hoover Institution explores the issues of poverty and inequality.
Most of what is framed as a problem of inequality is better conceived as either a problem of poverty or a problem of unjustly acquired wealth. …It’s important to distinguish the concepts of inequality and poverty. …Many people who worry about income inequality want to tax higher-income people more.
Given what economists know about the harmful effects from raising already high marginal tax rates even higher, tax increases could certainly reduce measured inequality—because they would cause higher-income people to reduce their taxable income by working less, by taking more pay in the form of untaxed fringe benefits, or by investing more in municipal bonds, whose interest is not taxable by the feds. Of course, none of this would make lower-income people better off. Indeed, to the extent that higher taxes discourage capital accumulation, they slow the growth of worker productivity. One of the main ways to increase worker productivity is to increase the amount of capital per worker. With a slower growth rate of capital, worker productivity will grow more slowly—and so will real wages. This makes lower-income people worse off than they would have been.
Henderson uses Lydon Johnson as an example of how some people use government favoritism to line their pockets.
But he wisely notes that any inequality that arises from “unjustly acquired wealth” is a symptom of the real problem of cronyism.
Great wealth, meanwhile, is a problem only to the extent that it is unjustly extracted. Government favoritism to politically powerful people may increase income and wealth inequality, as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson and his wife. But it is the government favoritism, not inequality per se, that is the true problem.
As a quick aside, Lyndon Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and Wilson).
And, having read Henderson’s article, I now have an additional reason to despise LBJ.
I’ll close by recycling my Eighth Theorem of Government, which is simply another way of expressing my oft-made point that we should try to improve life for the poor rather than worsen life for the rich.
Indeed, I sometimes think this theorem is a good way of discerning who is a good person and who is a bad person.
Regarding the latter, we should recognize that some people are simply misguided. These are the folks who actually think that there’s a fixed amount of income and wealth, so they mistakenly believe that if someone like Bill Gates gets rich, the rest of us somehow lose.
Smart folks on the left know that’s not true, so I give them credit for that, but I also think they are reprehensible for being motivated by a desire to hurt the rich, even when that means the rest of us suffer as well.
The bottom line is that market-driven growth is good for everyone, especially the poor.
P.S. The most accurate political analysis of inequality came from Margaret Thatcher.
P.P.S. Here’s the world’s best-ever tweet about inequality.
P.P.P.S. For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the world.
