Yes, Making the Rich Poorer Would Make Everyone Else Richer [View all]

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/20-6


The math, in fact, is very straightforward: When huge fortunes at the top are more heavily taxed, it does pay for public goods like pre-K or prison incarceration that can increase life chances for the poor. (Public domain/Tumblr)


Conservatives like to argue that curbing the outsized wealth of the top 1 percent wouldn't do anything to increase economic mobility or reduce inequality. Rich Lowry of the National Review nicely summed up this thinking in a column the other day:

Mark Zuckerberg could be stripped of all his wealth tomorrow, and it wouldn't help anyone further down the income ladder. It wouldn't increase wages, or reduce out-of-wedlock child rearing, or lead to less incarceration or revive the work ethic, all of which would enhance mobility and lift more people into the middle class. It would just make Mark Zuckerberg poor.
Before getting to Lowry's larger point, let's actually look at the math regarding Zuckerberg. His wealth is fluctuating because he's about to dump a bunch of Facebook shares, but as of September 2013 he was worth $19 billion. So to engage Lowry's thought experiment we need to ask whether $19 billion could improve life prospects for those "down the income ladder?"

Obviously so. For example, $19 billion would be more than enough money to provide universal pre-K education for a year to every four-year old in America who now doesn't have this opportunity. Or that money could provide pre-K to every four-year old in Texas who doesn't have it for the next twenty years, with money left over to cover pre-K for every needy four-year old in New York City for the next decade.

Maybe Rich Lowry doesn't think that pre-K makes any difference in life chances, but the majority of parents and social scientists would beg to differ.