But Allan Sloan made a boo-boo anyway
In Newsweek 2004-04-12, p43, Mr. Sloan (one of my favorite financial writers, the only guy to explain how the Dow Jones Industrial Average is not average) makes a good argument for his side - but misses a larger point. Yes, it's a sign of respect that I'm typing in the whole damn paragraph to make sure I'm not quoting him out of context.
Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, argues that lowering taxes on investment income doesn't reward just the well-off, even though they get the builk of that income. "When you reduce the taxes [on capital], you get higher investment," says Mankiw, chosen by the White House as its spokesman for this article. "And when you get higher investment, workers are more productive and get higher wages." Over time, he argues, more and more of the benefit goes to workers. It sure sounds great - but it's not provable, at least not to me. This isn't trickle-down economics, it's seep-down economics.
Pay attention, here's the important part:
When I paid lower taxes on the dividends I got from Lee Enterprises, an Iowa-based newspaper chain, did Lee run out and give raises to reporters and buy more presses? I think not.
So let me get this straight - when Mr. Sloan paid less in taxes on dividends he received, he expected someone else to invest more of their money?
Am I missing something? Because it sounds to me like Mr. Sloan should have invested his money, somewhat increased by paying less taxes on it.