Kudos to Ross Douthat for his rebuttal to David Brooks on Piketty. Now, who will rebut Douthat about recent tax-policy history?
Okay, seriously: Douthat’s delicate-ballet filleting of Brooks’s take on Piketty is priceless.
Now, maybe someone can fillet Douthat’s take on tax-rate increases for “Americans making (or inheriting) in the $100,000-$500,000 range,” which, he says, “is a demographic, it should be noted, that’s proven much more successful at resisting tax increases in the age of Obama than have the true plutocrats above them.”
Hmm. You’d almost think it was the Republicans rather than Obama and the congressional Democrats who tried to restore to Clinton-era levels the Bush-era tax cuts for people in the $250,000-$500,000 range, and estate taxes, and that Obama and the congressional Dems put a halt to it. Unless, that is, you have no familiarity with the psychology term “projection.” Or you just have a short memory.
This did happen in the age of Obama, though, so I guess it’s fine to suggest falsely that it was Obama’s choice. Obama orchestrated Republican obstructionism. Who knew?
And that Republican threat last December to shut down the government again, before finally acceding to some part of Obama’s tax-rate increases? Or am I confused, and it actually was the other way around?
Elsewhere in his post, Douthat says the Democrats won’t propose higher tax rates on people in that income bracket because, if they do, people in that bracket won’t vote for them. I guess he’s surveyed the many millions of people in that bracket who voted for Obama in 2012 despite his tax-increase proposals, and learned that they’ve had a change of heart since the election.