Richard Epstein: Income Inequality is a Good Thing 11-4-11

[godwithin060988]

1st off,

the income tax IS unconstitutional because it is a direct tax and NOT apportioned like the constitution demands.

2nd,

the supreme courts have ruled, the Stanton case (1916) being one of them, that the 16th amendment did not give the government ANY new taxation power.

3rd,

the definition for "income", just to mention ONE case, was given in the Doyle vs Mitchell 247 U.S. 179 (1918), which turned on the idea of "GAIN OR INCREASE ARISING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY".

End of argument.

[slhines7]

I personally am not aware of this fellow at all. I will have to do some research on him.

[PenguinProseMedia]

@slhines7 Libertarian law professor at UChicago. brilliant guy.

[slhines7]

@PenguinProseMedia I see and thanks for letting me know.

[bjarnet3]

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich in the free marked,,, but what about all these immoral CEO's who go rich out of the SYSTEM... (Government bailouts,, gov subsidies,, artificially low interest rates by the FED,, etc...)

[richardcadbury]

@bjarnet3 Government has corrupted business, not the other way around. Remove the government from the mixed economy, and the problem will go away.

[bjarnet3]

@richardcadbury I hate governmet,, Dont worry!

[heckler73]

I'd like to know where he gets his data from.

The GINI index has grown from around 35 in 1970 to about 46 in 2005.

But why quibble over a 30% increase, right?

Most call it growing income inequality, but Epstein figures "it's stable".

I'll presume, based on this fact, his book isn't worth picking up either.

[mangoswiss]

@heckler73

One of the things that Epstein alludes to is that a discussion of income equality is meaningless unless you also discuss income mobility. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about then I suggest you go read a book or do some internet searches for "Income Mobility"

The short version:

/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

The long version:

/watch?v=n62E4hB1uU8

The knowledge is out there you've just got to read it.

[heckler73]

@mangoswiss Thanx for the long version.

That still doesn't address my point that Epstein is wrong in his claim re: GINI stability.

How about the subject of Consumption Inequality (Krueger&Perri 2005)?

Granted, there are problems with using GINI as a sole argument (After-tax income, transfers, etc.). As well, factors such as idiosyncratic income shocks and usage of credit have greater effects on the lower quintiles. Even Horowitz omits that in his analysis.

So what's your opinion then?

[mangoswiss]

@heckler73

My opinion is that income and consumption inequality are difficult to measure and even harder to interpret. Do you include welfare? income mobility? It's impossible! and even once these issues are settled you still have the question of whether it's actually immoral for a gap to emerge? So long as absolute levels of income are increasing and that people are emerging from poverty surely we must continue whatever conditions are most likely to perpetuate it?

[PenguinProseMedia]

@mangoswiss "So long as absolute levels of income are increasing and that people are emerging from poverty surely we must continue whatever conditions are most likely to perpetuate it?"

This is one of the most articulate, soundest one-sentence arguments for economic freedom I've ever seen. Well done.

[trexx32]

this dude is full of shit what about the ceos that get billion dollar parachutes for wrecking a company