Rocketman
American Worker
President Obama has made it clear that he has one political goal this December: raise taxes on the rich. Last December, in Osawatomie, Kan., Obama explained why.
"In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year," Obama said. "Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all."
But do higher taxes on the rich reduce income inequality? Not according to a quick comparison of state inequality data and their corresponding tax codes.
Just take a look at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' recently released report "Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends." The CBPP used Census Bureau data to determine which states had the largest gap between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top 5 percent of earners.
According to CBPP, the states with highest levels of income inequality are: 1) Arizona, 2) New Mexico, 3) California, 4) Georgia and 5) New York. The report identifies a "more progressive" tax system as one way states can battle inequality, but it never tells us which states have the most progressive tax codes.
As a matter of fact, California and New York have two of the most progressive tax systems in the country, according to a separate report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Even before California raised its income tax rates on the rich this past November, the top 1 percent of Californians already paid 9.8 percent of their income in state taxes (including sales, property and income taxes). Only New Jersey and Vermont had higher effective rates on the rich. And New York was just behind California at 9.4 percent.
So if taxing the rich doesn't prevent income inequality, what does? Many on the Left, including the New Republic's Timothy Noah, believe that stronger unions can help reduce income inequality, but state-by-state comparisons don't help that case either.
New York, California and New Mexico are all forced-unionization states, meaning if you take a job with a unionized firm, you must join the union. Meanwhile the three states with the least income inequality, 1) Iowa, 2) Utah and 3) Wyoming, are all right-to-work states, meaning where workers have the right to choose whether or not they want to join a union.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-income-inequality-factor-liberals-cant-talk-about/article/2515360
"In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year," Obama said. "Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all."
But do higher taxes on the rich reduce income inequality? Not according to a quick comparison of state inequality data and their corresponding tax codes.
Just take a look at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' recently released report "Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends." The CBPP used Census Bureau data to determine which states had the largest gap between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top 5 percent of earners.
According to CBPP, the states with highest levels of income inequality are: 1) Arizona, 2) New Mexico, 3) California, 4) Georgia and 5) New York. The report identifies a "more progressive" tax system as one way states can battle inequality, but it never tells us which states have the most progressive tax codes.
As a matter of fact, California and New York have two of the most progressive tax systems in the country, according to a separate report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Even before California raised its income tax rates on the rich this past November, the top 1 percent of Californians already paid 9.8 percent of their income in state taxes (including sales, property and income taxes). Only New Jersey and Vermont had higher effective rates on the rich. And New York was just behind California at 9.4 percent.
So if taxing the rich doesn't prevent income inequality, what does? Many on the Left, including the New Republic's Timothy Noah, believe that stronger unions can help reduce income inequality, but state-by-state comparisons don't help that case either.
New York, California and New Mexico are all forced-unionization states, meaning if you take a job with a unionized firm, you must join the union. Meanwhile the three states with the least income inequality, 1) Iowa, 2) Utah and 3) Wyoming, are all right-to-work states, meaning where workers have the right to choose whether or not they want to join a union.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-income-inequality-factor-liberals-cant-talk-about/article/2515360
