Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
Funny how no one who cries and moans about income inequality actually gives us information to determine which economic polices do the most to end it. Could that be because their real objective isn't actually equality?
If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?
![Figure-1-Lindgren-1024x975.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fvolokh-conspiracy%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F14%2F2014%2F01%2FFigure-1-Lindgren-1024x975.jpg&hash=a139eb4b6bb68eed18bbb03ce2ad2bf3)
As you can see from Figure 1, the first George Bush’s presidency had no meaningful effect on the after-tax share of income for any segment of the population. The Reagan and Clinton presidencies closely tracked one another: in both presidencies the share of the poorest quintile showed a trivial drop, while the top 1% had a substantial boost of a half percent in their share of national household income.
The only presidency that had a big improvement in equality of income shares was George W. Bush’s. Each of the four quintiles in the bottom 80 percent enjoyed a substantial .4 to .6 increase in share, while the top 1 percent suffered a large 1.4 percent drop in their share of household income.
In some respects, Figure 2’s story is even more dramatic.
![Figure-2-Lindgren-1024x841.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fvolokh-conspiracy%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F14%2F2014%2F01%2FFigure-2-Lindgren-1024x841.jpg&hash=e7179b8c1638792854c83776c737a216)
If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?