Ms Garvin is a zero-sum thinker.

No one will stop her from doing something that means a great deal to a lot of people, and being very highly paid for it. The amount of wealth that can be created is limitless.

She doesn't think she should have to try.

Does her attitude flatter anyone besides herself?

Okay one percent of controls a huge piece of the pie of wealth. But that does not mean they control everything. Does it mean they control people's movements or choices? Heck some of that wealth is even stagnant as it sits in a place earning interest if that. How does a person who owns a 50 million dollar painting affect or house in Florida affect my life or someone in California or China.

You know what frightens me is that one man in a big white house and his couple hundred friends in another big building down the street. Included their workers WHO control my life, rights, and freedoms.

Maybe the twit/tweet should be changed

"We live in a country where one percent of the people(President to police) control the majority of the country and laws. That is wrong."

We live in a country where one percent of the people are unelected bureaucrats who control the majority of the country and the laws. That is wrong.

It's not that it's wrong that they have it, whether by earning it or inheriting it, it's wrong that it is just sitting there doing nothing while right-wingers claim that to tax them at a reasonable rate is treasonous. These same people claim that the poor, who make up 50% of our economy, need to get "skin in the game" and that the tax base needs to be flattened. That's code for tax the poor more and continue to protect the vast wealth at the top.

The poor pay plenty of taxes by the way. In fact, when you're poor, every single dollar of every paycheck goes directly to sales taxes and wealthier people days before the next paycheck comes around.

The trickle down theory is bunk. To the contrary, money rockets upward.

There is nothing wrong with that. It's how things work. But to defend the very wealthy, who benefit the most from the infrastructure of our nation, against reasonable taxes, as the Republicans in Congress are now doing, is silly and destructive.

I imagine this was the context in which so-and-so made her statement.

Zero-sum thinking is typical of the narcissist. They assume that they are entitled to everything; therefore, anything that someone else has must have been stolen from them somehow.

Interesting, whistledick. I didn't realize there was anyone in the country that spent 100% of their income on sales taxes. I mean, how do they buy the taxed item?

Yes, the poor do need to get some skin in the game. If you're dirt poor and make $1 this year, you should pay a nickle of it in taxes. If you make 2.4 billion dollars this year, you should pay 2.4 billion nickles.

History has shown (somewhere, I'm sure. I could look it up, and I'd start with "land reform" in South America) that societies do not do well when only a few people control most of the wealth.

Now if you'll excuse me, my smart phone is telling me it's time to go get into my Audi and drive to the theater, where I'll spend some of my weekend off setting a stage for a play I'm in, which I also have the leisure time to do. It does cut into the time I have for playing my hand built custom made guitar, but I like acting as well.

I am the 99%.

Momof4,

Either I have a writing problem or you have a reading comprehension problem. If it's on my end, I apologize.

"Break a leg", Steve!

I'm also quite happy with my lifestyle. I think that "I am the 99%" tag line of the hippie protesters is not very well thought out. So damned whiny. I, like you, sure can't relate to it.

> We live in a country where

Aren't you in Mexico?

> That's code for tax the poor more and continue
> to protect the vast wealth at the top.

You know what I hate almost as much as zero-sum thinking? Translators: People who hold you accountable the words they put in your mouth while never answering the points you struggle to say explicitly. They do this without shame. They're like a four-year-old who's always angry at his imaginary friend.

There is no such thing as "code".

We very badly need to tax poorer people at higher rates... Not for the money, but to encourage their participation in a political culture that's gone insane. As it is, they're watching the machine collapse all around them, because they think it's not their money.

The Occupy movement is moving into Canada. Here is one columnist's take on it.

"There is nothing crass or vulgar about telling someone to get a job.

If they are incapable of working, a civilized culture will take care of them.

But if you look at the mob on Wall Street, you will see a disproportionately middle-class, white, able-bodied section of society.

It’s the ethnic and the less educated who seem to be the ones rushing off to work, often low-paid work, and couldn’t find the time to protest even if they wanted to."

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/14/get-a-job

It's kind of funny hearing people saying that poor people should get taxed more. I was making $10 an hour at a hellish, difficult customer support job, at one point. That's about 20k a year before taxes btw, factoring in that we didn't get paid for holidays or sick/vacation days.

Well, I got taxed the hell out of my paycheck before I even got to deposit it in my bank account, with federal, state, and miscellaneous taxes taking out well over a quarter of it. And that certainly didn't exempt me from paying sales tax, which is 8% in this particular state.

People working as waiters in restaurants often get 0.00 paychecks every month. The measly sum paid by the restaurant goes entirely to taxes. It's assumed by the restaurant that they're going to make all their money from tips.

Even with the crappy minimum wage part-time retail job I had prior to that one, I had to pay plenty of taxes. So, the working poor are already paying a lot of tax. I'd rather see the loopholes closed that let many corporations pay no taxes at all, before we try to "teach" poor people to pay taxes.

I am not an economist but it seems silly to me to want to tax corporations more. Because all they will do is pass that on to the consumer. So essentially a person who wants to penalize corporations wants to penalize themselves (assuming they are a consumer). I would much rather see a smaller government that doesn't devour such massive amounts of money.

Wow. the initial statement is so far off, it's not even wrong.

This is a consumer society. If people did not think Apple made better gadgets than anyone else, then Apple would not have more money than the US Treasury.

The "control" which is asserted is actually understanding - of what consumers want, and how to get it to them.

Hence, Walmart.

"But to defend the very wealthy, who benefit the most from the infrastructure of our nation, against reasonable taxes, as the Republicans in Congress are now doing, is silly and destructive."

I looooove this one, it's so hilarious. "Reasonable" taxes? I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise you just haven't noticed who does pay taxes in this country.

Basically, you've just joined the Occupants, crying, "You have too much - give it to me."

Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, writing in the May 2011 issue of Vanity Fair...

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Some excerpts:

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. . . . But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. . . . Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

"I'd rather see the loopholes closed that let many corporations pay no taxes at all, before we try to "teach" poor people to pay taxes."

Sarah - who do you think pays corporate taxes?

I'm having a hard time understanding these idiots. Guess who employs the majority? Oh wait, it's the wealthy people who own corporations. And we're going to create more jobs by taking away the money they are using to pay their current payroll. What complete and total nonsense!

Too many people idolized a thief in tights running around the woods, giving away his plunder to the poor people.

I get sick of the 'poor' word being thrown around. Do you have a place to live? Do you have clean, running water? Do you have gas/electric to heat both the running water, and your house? Do you have food? If not, my tax dollars provide a welfare office so that you can get those things. If you do, however have those things, you are better off than eighty percent of humanity and I'm tired of listening to your whining about how crappy your life is...go to Africa/Asia/South America, and help some real poor and understand how good you have it. Then, come back and maybe you'll actually be grateful to those "greedy" investment bankers that are pouring their cash into corporations that actually provide the opportunity to find employment, not only for yourself, but for your neighbors and friends too.

Oh and, Labor laws require restaurants that pay lower than minimum wage to keep track of tips in order to insure that everyone hits an average minimum wage. If there aren't enough tips, the restaurant is required to add into your check to make up the difference. If they aren't doing that, report them to your state labor board, and/or sue for your wages. Our country allows for the mistreated to stand up and take control of their own destiny if they want to do that instead of sit around and whine.

> So, the working poor are already paying a lot
> of tax.

First, it's awkward to start a sentence with "so" and a comma. Not as bad as "but" and a comma, but still awkward.

Second, they're not paying income tax, and I want them to.

Listen, I think it will hurt them. And I feel bad about that. But I think they'll also demand that their taxes be reduced, and as a result government will be less inclined to spend money on bogus "solar" investments and bullshit wars. Isn't that what you want?

> I'd rather see the loopholes closed that let
> many corporations pay no taxes at all

There's some reasonable middle ground, but I don't understand at a fundamental level why people want to tax companies, which are fundamentally impersonal things. Why not tax their owners? Isn't that how it works, like, anyway?

> before we try to "teach" poor people to pay
> taxes.

First of all, why the quotation marks? Who are you quoting? If you're not quoting someone, why did you use quotation marks?

In my experience, when a commenter's that desperate to put words in someone's mouth, the commenter knows the argument is for shit.

No one has suggested that Pelosi and Brown need to "teach" poor people to pay taxes. But they need to teach poor people to pay taxes and LIKE it, which they'll find difficult indeed.


> Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

Arafat had one too... No props there, buddy.

Stiglitz said "many" countries in Europe. "Many" does not mean "all."

If the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are greater than in France and England that doesn't mean Stiglitz's statement is wrong.

I have no idea how much time Stiglitz has spent in Europe compared to you. Maybe he's only been there once or maybe he has a flat on the Rue des Rosiers and spends two months there every year. Who knows? I don't. What I do know is that he's a economist and a Nobel prize winner, and you are neither so I value his economic commentary over yours.

"It’s the ethnic and the less educated who seem to be the ones rushing off to work, often low-paid work, and couldn’t find the time to protest even if they wanted to."

What a load.

Anyway, it's all in the plan. If everyone's poor except the top 1% we'll be much, much easier to control.

No time for that pesky freedom of speech thingy. Have to get to my low-paying job and beg for scraps.

> Basically, you've just joined the Occupants,
> crying, "You have too much - give it to me."

Weird rhetoric from a federal technocrat, but whatever.

WhistleDick:

It's not that it's wrong that they have it, whether by earning it or inheriting it, it's wrong that it is just sitting there doing nothing ...

That is ignorance on stilts. The rich do the same two things with their money the rest of us do: spend or invest it.

If the government takes more of it, then that take gets spent now, in lieu of investment in future productive capacity.

The first thing progressives need to do is eliminate the word "free" from their vocabulary.

... while right-wingers claim that to tax them at a reasonable rate is treasonous.

Define "reasonable". BTW, the top 1% already pays as much in federal tax as the bottom 95%.

These same people claim that the poor, who make up 50% of our economy ...

Bollocks. First you need to decide what poverty is. Hint: almost no one defined as impoverished today qualifies in meaningful material terms.

... need to get "skin in the game" and that the tax base needs to be flattened. That's code for tax the poor more and continue to protect the vast wealth at the top.

No, that's code for numeracy. Taking 100% of the income of the top 1% (or 5%,for that matter) won't fix the fiscal hemorrhaging.

The answer requires some combination of two things: reducing the size of government, and broadening the tax base.

Remember, there is no such thing as free.

The poor pay plenty of taxes by the way. In fact, when you're poor, every single dollar of every paycheck goes directly to sales taxes and wealthier people days before the next paycheck comes around.

Wow, this is so breathtakingly wrong and incoherent that it belongs on an OWS poster.

The trickle down theory is bunk. To the contrary, money rockets upward.

Progressives are so cute when they talk about economics.

Did you know that over the past 40 years, the cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle has come down by something more than 20%?

Staying in the motoring arena, although there is nearly an infinitude of other examples, the average car today cost roughly $20,000; in the 1970s, it was about $4500.

So, the inflation of new car prices over the period is 400%, right?

Before you answer that question, ask yourself how much it would cost to buy in 1975 a car equivalent in quality to a new car in 2011.

Maybe then you will get the point that trickle down is about a heck of a lot more than numbers of dollars.

> Progressives are so cute when they talk about
> economics.

As are government employees. Oh, it's just adorable! They have the darnedest ideas about how markets work, and what it means to take a risk.

It is okay for good law abiding, nonexploitative American people with good characters and good ethics to control the wealth of America. Many asians or nonwhites used money that they saved or make in an extreme way to enslave people and caused more suffering to the disadvantaged and that is bad. Good Americans should protect their wealth and prevent their wealth from falling into unscrupulous agenda. Money is only good when it is used for good intentions or when it helps people to improve their life. But what if it falls into the hands of a nonwhite slave driver who want to enslave America with unscrupulous nonwhite power?

It is good to be generous, but when you see how those selfish asians are so unhelpful, draconian, exploitative, selfish, when they accummulated abit of wealth and caused so much suferring when we are in need of a bit of help, that surely is a sign that tell us to stop being so unwisely generous to those nonwhites.

"Social structure (social hierarchy) alone in France and England keeps people down. Especially in France. Way especially."

True dat. I was stunned when I first learned, back in high school, how the French government decides who will and won't be allowed to apply for college. Today, I'm still stunned by it.

Karl Marx revealed that business owners are leeches on society, draining away the wealth that rightfully belongs to the workers. At least, the workers who have jobs.

The unemployed are free from this exploitation. Are they grateful?

The Soviet Union was officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They were officially worker's states. They had 70 years to perfect a system that valued worker's rights and happiness above all else, except above the power of the Communist Party membership, which was much less than 1% of the population. They were praised long and hard by the NY Times.

To support worker's rights, they assigned everyone a job and they removed the inefficiencies of competition. Everyone produced according to a series of carefully researched and integrated 5-year plans. Production was carefully measured, and plant managers were held to account.

Soviet workers developed the saying "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

The efficiencies of this worker's state were revealed in long lines for buying anything. People lined up to buy what was available, even if they did not immediately need it. They could usually arrange to trade it to friends for something they really wanted. Lines would form to buy cabbages, when they were available.

Authorities clamped down on the practice of stealing supplies. For example, they required factories to supply a burned-out bulb for each new one distributed. So, a market price developed for burned out light bulbs, to be sold to factories, so the factory could get fresh bulbs to keep some spares on hand.

The USSR fell apart, after many currency crises and "exchanges", each of which left people with savings reduced to 10% of their former buying power. Now, Russia's official line is that the people are poor because the capitalists in the US are stealing Russian wealth. They don't explain how.

Today, leftists assure the US populace that they have the same aims as the USSR did, and as Russia does now, but they will plan things much better. That is why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going broke under government control and planning.

You won't understand what prosperity really is until you live in a society where officially no one wishes to exploit you.

> Today, I'm still stunned by it.

I'm surprised to learn of this scheme sitting here now...

...But can't help wondering if they've therefore been able to keep their educational costs under control, especially on the admin side.

(Not saying the average French education is better than the average American, but....)

Today, leftists assure the US populace that they have the same aims as the USSR did, and as Russia does now, but they will plan things much better.

Some leftists, sure. And I'm sure some right-wingers would love to not have any kind of social safety net.

This doesn't mean the majority of people on the left and right want those things.

I don't know about how other people feel about being unemployed, but I personally feel being unemployed is a frustrating experience in asia because in asian culture, almost everyone tried to exploit your unemployed vulnerability or the powerlessness that comes with being unemployed. Asian horrible culture will always tried to exploit and demean people with no cash in hand, even though the unemployed is a hard working person.

Jim,

Are you saying that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are NOT going broke under government control and planning?

And, you believe that further government planning will be much better?

Insane Budget Savings
=== ===
Official One:  The CLASS Act was intended to provide long-term care insurance to everyone. I'm sorry to report that we will not be implementing it. It is too expensive.
Official Two:  Even worse, we won't be able to save $86 billion by implementing it.
Mike:  Too expensive, but it was going to save money. Are you nuts?
=== ===

Is it even true, that 1% of the population controls the majority of wealth in America? Or just another convenient slogan?

That 1% busted their arses for it, and now people want them to hand it out to everybody else?

Busted their ass for it? For every Steve Jobs in the list who did bust their ass, there are two or three of Sam Walton's kids who did nothing but win the birth lottery to get their money.

But just keep sticking up for them. They don't care one whit about you and me, but at least our debates entertain them.

Crella not all 1 percent earned that money. But so what. That is way things are, life is not fair.

I hate rich spoiled kids too. But in the end I will not hold them much malice. True the got their money from mommy and daddy then hard work. Lucky them and I can hope they lose it.

You know what I bet there are tonnes of people who would trade me with right now. People from Africa, Middle East - would love to have my luck and opportunity. I bet some would even beat my ass for my wasted potential and past actions.

Corporations pay NO taxes. Let's repeat that for those in the back-Corporations pay no taxes. They take money from us, and pass it to the government. I for one would like to simply abolish that altogether.

M4, the study showing that corporations pay no taxes was flawed. Almost every small business owner has a corporation, as I do, but we take a salary from our corporation and then pay income taxes on THAT income. So, the corporation doesn't actually pay taxes, but that doesn't mean that taxes aren't being paid.

The leftists who commissioned that study knew this - how almost all small businesses function -and what it would say, and it makes a nice soundbite, but it's not telling the full story.

Big corporations also pay taxes. But, like all of us, they pay only on their proifts, which are not the huge numbers usually thrown about. That's gross income. The profit margins for a lot of these corporations are actually pretty small, and not all even make money every year.

Here's a good link:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/do_corporations_really_pay_no.html

"Well, I got taxed the hell out of my paycheck before I even got to deposit it in my bank account, with federal, state, and miscellaneous taxes taking out well over a quarter of it. And that certainly didn't exempt me from paying sales tax, which is 8% in this particular state."

Rich people pay all the same taxes plus property taxes because they usually own homes.

The top 1% of earners pay 37% of the income taxes in this country, the top 10% pay 68%.

47% of citizens pay no income tax. By far, the rich are carring the greatest tax load in this country, which is part of the problem. They're carrying almost all of it, yet, percentage wise, they're the smallest group. Even if you taxed the top 10% at 100% of their earnings each year, it still wouldn't make a dent in our national debt.

"The top 1% of earners pay 37% of the income taxes in this country, the top 10% pay 68%."
The top 1% control 35% of the money in this country. The top 10% control 73%. So those tax numbers seem to be pretty fair. How is this "part of the problem"??

When you have basically half the citizenry paying no income taxes, it's a problem. Setting aside the unfairness of it, as I said, even if you taxed the top earners 100% (which would totally destroy any incentive for them to create jobs. They wouldn't even get out of bed if the gov is taking every dime of what they earn. There'd be no innovation, no research, no Steve Jobs ever again, so our economy would totally collapse), it still wouldn't fix our debt problem.

"What I do know is that he's a economist and a Nobel prize winner, and you are neither so I value his economic commentary over yours."

President Obama is a President and Nobel laureate, and you are neither, so...

...so you're appealing to authority. That's a fallacy.

"Weird rhetoric from a federal technocrat, but whatever."

Still clinging to your mistake, I see. Considering how well you write, that's a tragedy.

It takes a master of bureaucracy to suck the teat and cluck at the same time.

"M4, the study showing that corporations pay no taxes was flawed. Almost every small business owner has a corporation, as I do, but we take a salary from our corporation and then pay income taxes on THAT income. "

LS, I think what she meant was that taxing corporations is a chimera -- they just pass the cost along. Ultimately, all taxes are paid by individuals.

Andrew, I should think it was very obvious what I was saying. If you read it again, and still don't understand the point, please let me know and then I'll explain it to you. Thanks.

Radwaste, I didn't say that Stiglitz was correct. I'm sure there are economists who disagree with him, as well as others who agree with him. What I said was that I value his economic commentary over Amy's, just as I would value Julia Child's commentary about French cooking over Amy's.

Interestingly, I just started reading Arianna Huffington's book Third World America last night and in Chapter One she writes...

Indeed, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and even the often-reviled France have greater upward mobility than we do.

In his piece, Stiglitz merely says that "many countries" in Europe have greater upward mobility without mentioning any by name (for all we know, he would agree with Amy on England and France.) Huffington, on the other hand, makes her assertion about specific countries and differs with Amy's assertion about France vis-a-vis the U.S.

Now again, I'm not saying Huffington's right. I don't know how upward mobility is measured. It may very well be that one hundred brilliant economists could support Huffington's claim while one hundred others could support Amy's. But I value (or believe) her claim more than I do Amy's.

I tend to like things that go against the grain of conventional wisdom. I think it is clearly conventional wisdom that upward mobility in the U.S. is greater than any other country in world and I am intrigued by the idea that this may not be the case.

Well, there's some sense to that. After all, the Tea Partiers have led the way by showing us that Obama is a Muslim (as well as not being born in America.) So perhaps he's a member of Al Qaeda as well.

"It takes a master of bureaucracy to suck the teat and cluck at the same time."

When you find such a person, tell us. It isn't me, as I have explained at length to your deaf and dumb self.

"I tend to like things that go against the grain of conventional wisdom. "

Why? Because you want to be an edgy, with-it hipster? Because you want to be in with the cool kids? Because it's what you want to believe so that all of your own shortcomings will be excused? As in the case of global warming, it doesn't matter what the "consensus" is; the truth is the truth. What is the percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% of individuals? Is it 25%, 51%, 99%? I've seen all those claimed today. For the past several days I've been looking for actual numbers, and they turn out to be surprisingly hard to find. I'm starting to get a hint as to why that is.

Dave, I find it fascinating when conventional wisdom holds something to be true and then something else subverts it. Had you and I lived back in the 1600s, I would have been intrigued by Galileo's belief in heliocentrism while you, a believer in geocentrism, would have been wondering if I was interested in Galileo's belief because I wanted to be an edgy, with-it hipster.

Again, providing people earned their wealth and didn't steal it, why is it anyone's business?

I'm going to have to refer you to Stiglitz's article again. He articulates why income/wealth inequality is bad for our society in a way that I can't.

Let me ask you a question: are you in favor of progressive tax rates or a flat tax rate?

I live on my own property. The so-called 1 percent cannot "steal" it from me, unless I default on my mortgage. I think things are OK for most people, amazingly enough, unless you're a smelly, Marxist hippie camping out in a park in Lower Manhattan

Busted their ass for it? For every Steve Jobs in the list who did bust their ass, there are two or three of Sam Walton's kids who did nothing but win the birth lottery to get their money.

Yeah, and since you aren't dalit, you won the birth lottery, too.

Now just hand over you wallet nice and quietly.

In his piece, Stiglitz merely says that "many countries" in Europe have greater upward mobility without mentioning any by name (for all we know, he would agree with Amy on England and France.) Huffington, on the other hand, makes her assertion about specific countries and differs with Amy's assertion about France vis-a-vis the U.S.

Arianna Huffington, tendentious liar or fool?

(Yeah, I know, false dichotomy)

The moment Huffington, or Stiglitz, for that matter, make a mobility comparison between the US and European countries, they are making a fundamental error that indicts their integrity or reasoning.

The US has a very high rate of immigration compared to Europe. The knock-on effects of institutionalized racism still significantly affects the aspirations of black Americans. Therefore, by comparing the US as a whole with, say, Sweden, Stiglitz and Huffington are conflating the economic with the social. (Anytime someone similarly compares US life expectancy with other countries, they are making the same mistake. Excluding blacks from US mortality statistics — ie comparing Americans of European descent vs. Europeans — completely eliminates the purported difference.)

So, if Puffington or Stiglitz were to say that Minnesotans had less economic mobility than Swedes, that would probably be a valid comparison.

But to compare all of the US against Sweden, or France, or all of Europe, is a complete intellectual failure.

Even if the guy does have a Nobel.

Let me ask you a question: are you in favor of progressive tax rates or a flat tax rate?

That is not a simple question, because it has an implied antecedent which you are ignoring.

Are you in favor of a fiendishly complex tax code, with all the economic dead weight that comes with the territory, or a simple tax code that would allow for a more efficient economy?

"I live on my own property. The so-called 1 percent cannot "steal" it from me, unless I default on my mortgage."

That's not your property. That's the bank's property.

And whose property is the bank?

All together now, kids:

The moment Huffington, or Stiglitz, for that matter, make a mobility comparison between the US and European countries, they are making a fundamental error that indicts their integrity or reasoning.

Maybe so, Jeff. Maybe if there was a way to compare U.S. apples to Canadian, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish and French apples the U.S. would be leading the pack in upward mobility.

But maybe not. We don't know.

I appreciate your answer to the tax question but it was for Amy.

Amy, I should have stated my question this way: when it comes to taxing individuals on their income, are you in favor of progressive tax rates or a flat tax rate, or some other method? Or, do you feel that individual income should not be taxed at all?

And to borrow from what Jeff wrote, let's presume a simple tax code. That's what I'd prefer and I'm guessing you would too.

That should have been: I appreciate your response...

Maybe if there was a way to compare U.S. apples to Canadian, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish and French apples the U.S. would be leading the pack in upward mobility.

Just as with mortality statistics, there is. I have no idea whether a proper comparison would yield the conclusion that the US has more economic mobility; that isn't the point.

Rather, what is the point is that making such a gross equivalence must serve to understate US mobility. Absent inexplicable ignorance, the intent can only be polemical. Either way, having done so, why should we pay Puffington or Stiglitz any further mind?

---

RE your tax question. While your preference may be to presume a simple tax code, such a thing has never been found in the wild.

So the tradeoff is between a flat tax, which many people find morally offensive, and a byzantine tax code, which provides moral satisfaction, but at the cost of further corrupting Congress and making everyone, including the poor, less well off.

---

That's not your property. That's the bank's property.

IANAL, but that has to be wrong. So long as I pay my mortgage, the bank may not enter my property, nor alter or dispose of it in any way. A mortgage imposes a cashflow obligation. So long as I meet that, the benefits of ownership are mine alone.

Skipper, I appreciate your response too but, again, my question was for Amy.