And then there was this bit:
"Another important message of recent research is that a person’s salary depends far more on where she is born than on her talent and effort.For example, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal long ago, I hired a cook who had no formal education but was spectacularly intelligent and resourceful. Beyond preparing excellent meals, he could butcher a goat, thatch a roof, plaster walls, resole shoes and fix broken alarm clocks. He was also an able tinsmith and a skilled carpenter. Yet his total lifetime earnings were less than even a very lazy, untalented American might earn in a single year."
I really thought he was gonna go all Lant Pritchett on us by drawing the obvious implication of his observations and calling for increased immigration, but no, he just wants to tell people they have no business opposing tax increases.
Oh my, that's very different.
Here is probably my favorite sentence of the piece:
"The current system is much fairer than many people believe, and the president’s proposal will make it both fairer and more efficient."
Isn't there supposed to be a tradeoff between equity and efficiency? What is the magic sword that BHO wields to cut this Gordian knot?
(and on a snarkier note, if "the current system is much fairer than many people believe", why does it need to be made "fairer"?)
Here is Frank's argument for how we get a free lunch by raising taxes.
First, higher marginal tax rates are pretty much irrelevant to labor supply: "There has never been a shortage of talented people willing to work hard for success — even in countries with top rates much higher than 50 percent."
No evidence given here, and maybe it's just me but I thought he'd been arguing vociferously that it was luck, not talent and hard work that brought success
Second, more Federal tax revenues will automatically increase the efficiency of public service provison:
"It would, however, promote more efficient provision of public services, in much the same way that contingent fee contracts often promote more efficient provision of services in the private sector. For example, when lawyers are willing to waive fees unless their client wins, wrongfully injured accident victims often gain legal representation they couldn’t otherwise afford. Similarly, when government levies higher tax rates on the wealthy, we can provide public services that the wealthy and others greatly value but that would otherwise be beyond reach. Under such a tax system, the heavier tax bill becomes payable only if we’re lucky enough to end up among life’s biggest winners."
People, that has to be one of the 5 worst analogies I've read this year. I've read it 4 times and am still scratching my head. The best I can come up with is this:
The government is my lawyer and my career is a wrongful injury suit against the universe.
Of course, even if the analogy made sense, it still would have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES!!!