Tax the Rich
$250K/year is a good income, but not nearly enough to become a Lloyd Blankfein style malefactor of great wealth. This income will not let you buy an entry level house in a good school district in California. And I'm not talking Beverly Hills style mansions here, I'm talking 2BR 2BR 50 year old light construction in Menlo Park. It is not enough to buy material political influence, a la the great Robber Barron fortunes that seem to fuel most of the non-profit industry. And if you think public schools are mediocre -- certainly they are a shadow of what they were two generations ago -- private schools will chew up a bunch of that if you have the audacity of reproducing. Never mind that your prodigy is likely to the productive and remain out of jail.
Don't get me started on college tuition.
The WSJ's advice is comical. I mean, here we have a couple who is the very model of honest, smart, hardworking citizens, actually producing real value in the society instead of being government-backed Wall Street vampires, and they are told to:
- get by with one car
- move (the claim is that Chicago, Chicago! is too expensive to live in)
- cut discretionary expenses
The biggest joke is at the end of the article:
Never, ever, ever again blog about how hard it is to live on $300,000 or $350,000 a year at a time when one middle-aged man in four can't find a full-time job, and one in five can't find any job at all.And how exactly will yanking your kids from private school, getting rid of a car, and cutting all discretionary expense going to help the unemployed teacher, autoworker, dry cleaner, restauranteur, and gardener?
Federal taxes do not fund spending. They moderate aggregate demand. Our professional couple here is exactly the type of person an economy, and nation, wants more of. I also suspect that their discretionary spending represents marginal AD in this economy.