CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press NPR Tells US That Pew Expert Paul Taylor Wants to Promote Generational Conflict

NPR Tells US That Pew Expert Paul Taylor Wants to Promote Generational Conflict

Print
Tuesday, 04 March 2014 16:02

In the last three decades the rich have gotten the bulk of the benefits of economic growth, as those at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution have seen little improvement in living standards. This naturally leads many people to want to reverse the policies that have led to this upward redistribution, such as high unemployment, a trade policy that protects high end workers, while subjecting the middle and bottom to international competition, government subsidies to too big to fail banks, an ever more intrusive patent policy, an anti-trust policy that greenlights monopolies like Microsoft, and many others that could be added to this list.

Of course the winners of the last three decades don't want the public to consider policies that might reverse this upward redistribution, so instead they do things like try to promote generational conflict, claiming that the troubles of younger workers are somehow attributable to their parents Social Security and Medicare. Wall Street billionaire Peter Peterson is a leader in such efforts, having funded numerous groups for this purpose.

NPR did its part in the promotional of generational war, interviewing Paul Taylor, the executive vice president at Pew Research Center about his new book. Taylor repeatedly complained that younger generations don't seem angry about their parents' Social Security and Medicare. He told his interviewer:

"Well, what's so fascinating is there isn't any tension at the moment. You have a generation coming in that isn't wagging its finger with blame at mom or grandma, in fact, they're living with mom and grandma."

Later he adds:

"I leave this book thinking we have very serious demographically driven challenges, that we have a political system that at the moment isn't stepping up to the plate, but we have a population that isn't spoiling for a fight over these issues."

In addition to expressing his disappointment that the young don't share his antagonism to older people over their Social Security and Medicare, Taylor also seriously misrepresents some key points about these programs and the burdens they face. He tells listeners:

"Things are out of balance. Our Social Security and Medicare systems, which, in the public's mind, have done brilliantly in doing what they set out to do, they were based on the demographics of the 20th century. You had, literally, at the beginning, 150 workers per retiree, by the time all the baby boomers move into taking those programs, we'll only have two workers per retiree.

"The math of those programs does not work. Everybody who looks at the demographics knows that those systems are going broke with 15 or 20 years and the longer you wait, the more the burden of the solution is going to fall on the millennials."

Actually, the demographics have long been known to the people who designed these programs and were predicted almost perfectly many decades ago. Furthermore, the projected shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare can be met with tax increases on the millennials that are considerably smaller than the tax increases faced by the baby boomers.

The key issue is whether we continue to see the upward redistribution of the last three decades or whether the gains from growth are broadly shared. The Social Security Trustees project that average compensation will increase by more than 50 percent over the next three decades. If the wages of typical worker increase in step with the average then it would be difficult to see the generational injustice if their payroll taxes increased by two to three percentage points, especially since this will be needed in order to support their own longer retirements.

It is striking that NPR is willing to focus so much more attention on the threat to the living standards of millennials presented by a 2-3 percentage point increase in payroll taxes than the policies that could lead to much or all of the benefits of productivity growth over the next three decades going to those at the top, as has been the case for the last three decades.

Comments (28)Add Comment
Or, we could..., Low-rated comment [Show]
...
written by JSeydl, March 04, 2014 6:07
KJMClark, did you even read what Dean wrote before asserting what you *know* to be true?
...
written by Mark Jamison, March 04, 2014 6:20
@Kjmclark
If you turn Social Security into a welfare program, which is exactly what you propose with means testing and eliminating wage caps, you will set the wheels in motion for its demise. Social insurance programs have broad popular buy in and support, not so much social welfare.
The fact is, as Dale Coberly has pointed out quite eloquently at Angry Bear and in comment threads here, you need a tax increase of about 80 cents a week repeated over several years in order to get the system fully in balance.
As for Medicare, as Dr. Baker has repeatedly pointed out, the problem is one of medical costs not taxes or participation. Our medical costs are twice that of any developed country and our results are middling. In the other words about have of what we spend on medical costs is simply wasted. Patent and tax schemes that favor drug companies and device companies, rules similar to the guild system of the Middle Ages that stifle competition among medical professionals, and generally the same sorts of laws and structures that create inequality through upward redistribution plague our medical industry and rob us blind.
There's no reason we should engage in generational theft or finger pointing. There's no reason we should undermine the basic philosophies underpinning social insurance. In fact, doing those things is at the top of the wish list of folks like Pete Peterson and others who have been trying to blow up the systems that prevent them from controlling all the wealth (not just most of it).
Paul Taylor can't add
written by Squeezed Turnip, March 04, 2014 9:08
Wages stagnate for 30 years, while health care costs soar and pensions go the way of the dinosaur. And Paul Taylor expects grandkids and kids, who have watched their parent and grandparents fall under this active economic repression by the elite, to rise up in arms against their parents and grandparents who had not a damned thing to do with the business and political leadership that didn't have a brain cell between them to figure out how to tweak the Reagan-O'Neil SS compromise without causing further actual real hardship??? In your dreams, Paul. My kids and grandkids are smarter than Paul Taylor ever will be.
Never gets old!
written by Jennifer, March 04, 2014 10:31
The demographic story-we cannot manage all these (slacker) old people-whether here or in China, just will not die. It's pretty amazing that it has not seemed to have made much of an impact considering how much it has been pushed. I know when I was a twenty-something Social Security was not something I thought much about. If I had been faced with the current brutal job market combined with high debt and poor social safety net I might have considered generation war.
Scrap the Cap vs FICA Increases vs Wage Inequality
written by Bruce Webb, March 05, 2014 1:54
It doesn't have to be either or. It is well known to those who have looked at the numbers what a FICA only increase would be needed to backfill the entire projected 75 year actuarial gap as opposed to a Scrap the Cap lifting of the current payroll cap or a change in its formula or positive efforts to address lagging Real Wage relations to Productivity/Read GDP over the last 30 years. In fact you could fix Social Security pretty handily via any of those routes. Or do it much easier via a combination with offsets. For example folks at Econoblog Angry Bear have shown definitively that you can deliver full scheduled benefits under the existing cap at a rate of 80 cents per worker per week per year going forward. Other folks have shown that you can address some or all of that by changing the cap formula or erasing it, and our host has made the case for the last 15 years that every bit of it could be eliminated by restoring the relation between GDP growth and Real Wage. But none of those are in conflict, not really, not from the standpoint of workers. Even without addressing lagging Real Wage fixing Social Security would require devoting only about 6% of the stagnating projections to Social Security. An amount that would be decreased by any number of changes to the Cap formula. And would be obviated in a couple of different ways if we just adopted policies that targeted employment and Real Wage. As such fighting over FICA increases vs Scrap the Cap vs redressing Income Inequality is a mug's game. Do all three in any combination you like and this 'crisis' is exactly what some dudes named 'Dean Baker' and 'Mark Weisbrot' dubbed it in their 1999 book: 'Social Security: the Phony Crisis'. And nothing fundamental has changed since then, you can fix Soc Sec from the revenue side in any one of three ways or any combination without any adverse impact on anyone. Except maybe hedge fund billionaires like Peter G Peterson. As I have told Dean (leaning on lessons Dean taught me over the years) "We Have the Numbers". And we do. People will be shocked to see how cheap ANY revenue based solution would be compared to the Fix the Debt/Kick the Can/Intergenerational Warfare rhetoric out there.

Start with 80 cents a week. That fixes it. And if you want to make that fix cheaper tinker with the cap formula and by All That is Holy (or the FSM depending) adopt the single five word total fix to not just SS but most other parts of the Progressive agenda:

More Jobs. At Better Wages. That is all it would take.
..., Low-rated comment [Show]
Expectations for the young's income
written by Dean, March 05, 2014 7:54
I'm not sure where dax has his 75 percent and 25 percent. I noted that average income will be much higher for workers 30 years out than it is today. I can't guarantee that everyone will benefit from that, but I certainly can identify policies that would ensure that the gains of growth are broadly shared.

I can see no rationale for saying that rather than trying to reverse the policies that are leading to an upward redistribution of income we should focus on trying to save workers a few percentage points on their payroll tax by cutting benefits for middle income retirees. That seems incredibly perverse to me.
...
written by dax, March 05, 2014 8:21
"I'm not sure where dax has his 75 percent and 25 percent."

Making it up out of thin air, just so it's easy to refer to the two groups.

"I certainly can identify policies that would ensure that the gains of growth are broadly shared."

Wonderful. By all means try to implement these policies. But until you do, you have nothing to show the 25% (again, making this number out of thin air - but it serves to make the reference to the group easier) except a sort of promise. Moreover, given the state of American politics, I would think you know that it's unlikely your policies will in fact be implemented, so you're making a sort of promise which you know won't be kept.

"we should focus on trying to save workers a few percentage points on their payroll tax by cutting benefits for middle income retirees"

Well which workers? As long as the workers paying more tax are those who are better off than the middle-income retirees, I'm all for it. But to take from poor workers to pay for middle-income retirees is perverse.
No one is handing back their Social Security
written by Dean, March 05, 2014 8:47
Dax,

sorry Dax, I don't "know" that we will not be able to prevent the continuing upward redistribution of income over the next three decades. I do know that middle income retirees will not voluntarily surrender large portions of their SS checks. Your proposal is that we concentrate efforts on taking money from middle income retirees rather than preventing the continued upward redistribution to the rich. Seems like bad policy and bad politics.
...
written by jamzo, March 05, 2014 8:59
paul taylor...an expert on the demographics, social security, economics, etc

Paul Taylor is the executive vice president of special projects at the Pew Research Center, where he oversees demographic, social and generational research. Taylor is the author of The Next America, a new book examining generations and the country’s changing demographics. From 1996 through 2003, he served as president and board chairman of the Alliance for Better Campaigns. Before that, he was a newspaper reporter for 25 years, the last 14 at The Washington Post, where he covered national politics and served as a foreign correspondent. From 1992-1995, he was the Post’s bureau chief in South Africa and reported on the historic transformation from apartheid to democracy. He also covered four U.S. presidential campaigns. Taylor is also the author of See How They Run (Knopf, 1990) and co-author of The Old News Versus the New News (Twentieth Century Fund, 1992). He twice served as the visiting Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University, in 1989 and 1995. He graduated in 1970 with a bachelor’s in American Studies from Yale University. Taylor has lectured at numerous colleges and frequently discusses Pew Research studies in print and broadcast media.
...
written by dax, March 05, 2014 9:01
"Your proposal is that we concentrate efforts on taking money from middle income retirees rather than preventing the continued upward redistribution to the rich."

Where is the "rather than" in what I said? I'm all for preventing the continued upward redistribution to the rich. What is upward redistribution is your taking from poor workers to give to middle-income retirees.

Anyway, on the political level I think you're correct. Can't touch Social Security benefits. But the argument has to go: SSN benefits need to stay (at least) where they are; since we shouldn't be taxing poor workers more to pay for middle-income retirees, then we should be taxing rich workers far more. Your argument (the average worker will benefit, therefore taxing all workers more is okay) does not strike me as optimal. I'll stop here.
...
written by skeptonomist, March 05, 2014 9:35
Taylor and other SS bashers (like Robert Samuelson) are apparently not aware that lower birth rates mean lower numbers of non-working children, who have to be supported by workers. The fact that the fraction of elderly will be increasing does not mean that the fraction of working people will be decreasing. According to Census projections the fraction of working age (18-64) will be about the same in 2050 as in 1900 or 1965:

http://www.skeptometrics.org/RealDemographics.html

This implies a change in the tax regime (more federal taxes, less state and local), but the idea that there will be too few workers or money to support the elderly is nonsense, even ignoring the fact that productivity will increase.
The Maker Youth Movement: Generational Conflict Has Morphed Into Single Issue Politics
written by Last Mover, March 05, 2014 9:55

Seriously, among many Americans the lines of political definition for generational economic conflict have grown as bright as cultural clashes on abortion, gender and racial rights.

For example, recently NPR interviewed Jim Demint of the Heritage Foundation, who premised his responses with the unquestioned assertion that the younger generation in America believes it has nothing to look forward to economically.

Demint went on the with the usual naive, childish, contradictory observations about how Heritage was not about politics but instead, about restoring the historical foundation of individual freedom and values from which both parties would apparently come to see the guiding light and follow fortwith.

Demint was questioned only about why Heritage had been marginalized by fellow mainstream Republicans.

Not a word about any of the key points listed in this blogpost by Dean Baker. Not one question posed to Demint about how the younger generation came to "believe" it has no economic future.

The premise casually uttered by Demint was left standing by NPR, which clearly implied the younger generation has not been brainwashed by sock puppets of the 1% to believe the economic enemy is their elders, taking their jobs, earnings and all the rest of it with "out-of-control entitlement" spending on themselves - the elders.

It was not the housing bubble, not the financial sector, not the Great Recession, not the output gap, not the market power, not the concentration of the rich and capture of productivity gains, not the trade deficit ... no, it was the flood of retired and ailing Senior Takers of America who are the economic enemy aren't they.

Yes sireee America, we know who the real enemy is don't we. The younger generation has really done its economic homework hasn't it. In fact it can cite issue-by-issue every point posted in this blogpost and rebutt every one with a resounding educated comeback can't it.

It's not like young people indoctrinated by right wing politics strut around spewing and hissing sound bytes on generational conflict so simple, the sum of their knowledge on the issues would fit into a single Tweet.

Wait for it America, the next single issue political faction, The Youth Maker Movement, will arrive any day now to put Senior Takers in their place where they belong don't they ... in Cat Food Prison, where they shall reap what they sowed and and not one goddamn penny more.

Blessed are the children of the 1%, for they shall inherit the Earth, so sayeth the Sock Puppets. Amen.
idiots, all of them
written by Joe, March 05, 2014 12:05
Anyone who speaks of social security and medicare going broke are idiots. The US govt is the source of US dollars (Yes, functionally the fed is part of govt). It can't run out. The govt had to issue the dollars before anyone had any dollars to with which to pay taxes or buy treasury bonds. In fact the govt must have a deficit if the private sector wants to net save in USD. That's just arithmetic fact.
The *ONLY* thing that matters to social security and medicare is if we as a society are productive enough to provide the real goods and services that the seniors will purchase with their SS and medicare.

It takes a genius to not understand this stuff.
Dax premise I don't understand
written by Joe T., March 05, 2014 1:48
Dax wrote:
"Now, if he were selling insurance, and the 25% were paying a premium now, against bad luck in the future, Dean's position would be understandable. But the situation is the reverse of insurance; those who will be doing particularly bad in the future (or who have died) don't recuperate their youthful poverty."

SS *is* (mandatory) insurance. You're paying in installments for a future (retirement) annuity. You can buy such a retirement annuity from any insurance company, if you want to augment SS (or if you aren't eligible for SS). Just like an annuity from an insurance company, some purchasers lose out on the full (time adjusted) value because they die or don't live long enough to get back their investment. Others recuperate more than they put in. These are risk pooling effects, just like how any insurance policy works.

SS is a forced annuity because it helps the nation and its economy to not have destitute elderly. It's a better deal than insurance companies' annuities because there's minimal overhead.

You seem to want a welfare-furnished retirement, to protect "the 25%" from paying 6% of their income to SS. Or if not, then you want "freedom" of "the 25%" to not have to invest in retirement if they don't want to. Anecdotally, I've never met anyone who regrets paying into SS; similarly, I've met a few who evaded paying into SS and they regret it every day they've left work. Do you have one example otherwise?

(Another way to make SS solvent is to reduce the marriage-related benefits, which take up nearly 15% of the SS payouts, and are arguably overly generous for many recipients. But $0.80/week sounds even better.)
example
written by Squeezed Turnip, March 05, 2014 1:57
Dax premise I don't understand
written by Joe T., March 05, 2014 1:48

I've met a few who evaded paying into SS and they regret it every day they've left work. Do you have one example otherwise?

Here's a probably example otherwise: Pete Peterson.
...
written by coberly, March 05, 2014 6:28
Paul Taylor is so grindingly stupid it's incredible that anyone listens to him.

He says, "You have a generation coming in that isn't wagging its finger with blame at mom or grandma, in fact, they're living with mom and grandma."

Exactly. mom and grandma, far from stealing from their kids, are supporting them because Paul Taylor's friends have taken away their jobs.

...
written by coberly, March 05, 2014 6:38
dax

first, it's Eighty Cents Per Week. that is not a burden on anybody. second, for a poor worker, it's more like 40 cents per week... in some, not all, years. third, those workers will get their money back, with "interest" including a BIG boost from the contributions of those who made more money than they did. So SS is a huge benefit to the poor. But it's structured as insurance and not as welfare. That makes a difference in most people's minds.

People of the far left have trouble understanding this. They seem commited to the idea of welfare... take from the rich. Well, that's understandable, but it won't fly in America. The rich won't let it, and the workers mostly don't like it.

And it seems stupid to me to run around telling the rich you are going to take their money away from them... when you can't... and when it's not necessary. Eighty Cents per week... what you need to set aside because you are going to live longer than your grandma... and because Paul Taylor's friends (Pete Peterson) have fixed the economy so you won't be making as much money as your parents and grandparents generation who knew how to stand up to big money better than you do.

If you can explain to yourself and to everyone else how Social Security actually works, the Big Liars who are trying to take it away from you will be laughed out of court. That's the nicest thing that should happen to them.

But calling for bigger taxes on the rich just plays into their hand. And basing your hopes on a revitalized economy and fair wages... is short sighted in the short run. Keep that SS so you've got something to live on if the economy stays bad... that's what it was invented for. IF you can win the economy back from the crooks and idiots now running it, then that eighty cent per week raise won't be needed... though it might be a good idea anyway... to create that bigger benefit everyone agrees the elderly really need.

but we have to pay for it ourselves. or they will take it away from us.
It's always misdirection (after projection) ...
written by John Puma, March 06, 2014 2:18
Oh, to lament!!!. Indeed, "a generation coming in that isn't wagging its finger with blame at mom or grandma," is more likely to (quite justifiably) wag pitchforks at those who richly deserve it.

Of course, if the "generation coming" WERE wagging its collective finger at its (grand)parents then Taylor presumably would be lamenting the loss of America's family values.

If NPR didn't have the likes of Taylor/Pew, they'd have to invent them.
Taylor's pitch is best targeted toward orphans
written by John Wright, March 06, 2014 9:09

The frustration the VSP's, like Taylor, have in ramping up intergenerational conflict may be simply that the SS money, in many cases, is flowing into a struggling family, not to a 'greedy geezer".

The dollar a poor grandmother receives from SS is a dollar the younger generations of her family will not have to pull from their pockets.

And if the dollar is banked by grandma, it increases the inheritance of her descendants.

So I doubt if the VSP's will be able to ramp up much enthusiasm for "fixing" social security amoung the poor and lower middle class of the USA.

While "Fixing" SS is a dream of the VSPs, their fellow less well off citizens have had plenty of time to see the VSPs have not manifested great long term concern for poor citizens at other times when it came to "free-trade" laws, tax benefits for wealthy hedge fund managers, environmental regulation, insurance company-drug company influenced Obama Care, involvement in unfunded foreign wars, weak financial reform, or necessary infrastructure investment.

So the VSP's "heroic" fight to reform Social Security for the good of the working class doesn't resonate well with American voters in general.

No wonder Taylor is frustrated.
Of course I read it,
written by KJMClark, March 06, 2014 3:06
I just think it's nonsense. You can call Social Security a transfer system and claim it's not welfare, but you're dissembling. All welfare programs work by transfers. So what? And I don't believe for one second that making Social Security means tested will lead to its demise - that pony gets trotted out every time someone wants the rich to pay a reasonable share, and it doesn't work. By that logic, our progressive tax system should have led to an elimination of income tax by now.

I'm all for charging future generations a higher percentage if *they're* the ones that will benefit. But telling them to pay more to cover today's recipients who didn't put enough in is not reasonable or fair.

And the part of the medicare problem that's due to health care inflation will largely be dealt with by the ACA. The bigger part remaining is due to too few workers to cover too many retirees - same problem as Social Security. Maybe you should figure out what Taylor's point was.
uh ...
written by Nonk Informist, March 06, 2014 4:05
… The bigger part remaining is due to too few workers to cover too many retirees - same problem as Social Security. Maybe you should figure out what Taylor's point was.


Lol. You're kidding, right? Of course we understand Taylor's position, it's just short-sighted and tunnel-visioned to boot. Sure, Taylor gives us an option. An option that is the worst of all other options, all the more remarkable that this option is offered by those who profess to be worried about the social fabric (in word only). Maybe KJMClark should also figure out what Dean Baker's point is (and just in case you're still too lazy to re-read the original post, here is the pertinent section):
Actually, the demographics have long been known to the people who designed these programs and were predicted almost perfectly many decades ago. Furthermore, the projected shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare can be met with tax increases on the millennials that are considerably smaller than the tax increases faced by the baby boomers.


And lets not forget that productivity gains could be more broadly shared. To claim that the wealthy won't allow that to happen, wow. That's darkly cynical and, frankly, un-American. Let's remember that the wealthy are a very small minority and that this is still a democratic republic. No wonder the 0.1% believe they can run the country when there's welcome mats like KJMClark rolling over and self-prepping themselves with KY. I mean, I guess s/he must think that if you agree to be raped, then it's not really rape, is it?

I'm all for charging future generations a higher percentage if *they're* the ones that will benefit. But telling them to pay more to cover today's recipients who didn't put enough in is not reasonable or fair.

Dear Future Recipients:

You would not exist were it not for us. Thank you for being grateful and helping us as we neared the end of life so we didn't die sick and destitute in the gutters and sidewalks and underpasses. Thank you for realizing that it wasn't some moral failing that led to this position, but just the fact that after the big one, there was a lot of lost time to be made up. Thank you for not listening to those like KJMClark and Paul Taylor, who asked you to favor your own selfish needs over that of your family.

Signed,
Today's Recipients
being fari
written by Squeezed Turnip, March 06, 2014 8:09
KJMClark says:
I'm all for charging future generations a higher percentage if *they're* the ones that will benefit. But telling them to pay more to cover today's recipients who didn't put enough in is not reasonable or fair.

Okay, but then in the interest of fairness we must also have all of future generations forswear all of the benefits they might have otherwise accrued from today's recipients, things like interstates, transistors, jets, satellites, rockets, the aging electrical grid, the flood control system, microwaves, dishwashers, washing machine, etc. I mean, it's only fair, see? The future generation will just have to invent their own technologies ... or do they just expect all that inheritance for nothing? I mean, generations no longer have to rely on each other, do they.
to kjm clark
written by coberly, March 06, 2014 9:12
clark,

you really don't understand the first thing about social security. the bad guys depend on people like you.
Looks like most of *you* don't understand how SS works.
written by KJMClark, March 06, 2014 10:58
Social Security taxes have had essentially two components since an early Greenspan commission recommended changes back in the 80s. There's the intergenerational transfer, based on the idea of current workers paying in to cover the costs of current retirees. But to deal with the demographics of the large Baby Boom generation, an extra amount was to be levied against them, to build a trust fund, that would allow the program to be solvent through the retirement of the Baby Boomers. You can read one version of that history at Dissident Voice http://dissidentvoice.org/2010...an-people/

That was supposed to be a big enough increase to cover the projected shortfalls from the Baby Boomers. We shouldn't need that in perpetuity. If expenses hadn't increased faster than expected we'd be projecting another surplus when the Millenials reach their main earning years, and would be building another trust fund for their retirements.

It looks to me like the rest of you are in favor of flat taxes, the rich getting away with a top marginal rate of 0%, and increasing taxes on the poor to cover retirement for the wealthy, who are likely to live longer than the lower income people who pay the most into Social Security. The Millenials will already have a 40% increase in their payments into Social Security and Medicare (thanks to those flat taxes) if they're getting 40% increases in their incomes. They don't need to pay a 60% increase in taxes for a 40% increase in their income.
Nonk, why don't *you* try reading what Dean wrote.
written by KJMClark, March 06, 2014 11:23
Let's try a little math, oh challenged one. What was the total Social Security tax rate in 1982, before the Greenspan Commission recommended an increase to create the trust fund to cover the Baby Boomer demographic bulge? It's http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs...#table2.a3 here. I'll save you the trouble, it was 6.7% for workers and 6.7% for their employers. To solve the demographic problem they increased the taxes in steps to 7.65% for each, 15.3% total.

Dean isn't talking about going back down to 6.7% then raising it to 7.5% or something. He's talking about increasing the current 7.65% to something more like 8%. But those Millenials have already paid more than 40% more on their higher income, since it's a flat tax rate, and they're *already* paying the 7.65% that the Boomers didn't have to pay until '90. And now we're talking about increasing their taxes even higher on a tax rate basis, not just on a total tax paid basis.

And when liberal me says a better solution than higher regressive taxes on the lower income is at least eliminating the 0% tax rate on income over $107k, all of you conservatives (apparently) whine that I'm the lackey of the rich (whose taxes I would be raising) while you're in favor of taxing the poor more. And who's bending over backward to help the rich?
Now the IMF Says we should means-test to deal with inequality
written by KJMClark, March 14, 2014 12:35
Just a week later:
"In advanced economies: (i) using means-testing, with a gradual phasing out of benefits as incomes rise to avoid adverse effects on employment;"
http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/012314.pdf

Are all of you good conservatives going to disagree with the IMF now too?

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives