Alan Reynolds for the Cato Institute: A stubborn myth of the pro-tax Left, exemplified by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, is that the Reagan tax cuts merely benefited the rich, aka the top 1 percent, so it would be both harmless and fair to roll back the top tax rates to 70 percent or 91 percent.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Between the cyclical peaks of 1979 and 2007, average individual income tax rates fell most dramatically for the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers, with the bottom 40 percent receiving more in refundable tax credits than paid in taxes.
By 2008, with the 2003 tax cuts in place, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development found the U.S. had the most progressive tax system among developed countries, while taxes in Sweden and France were among the least progressive …
Since 1988, despite vigorous efforts of the pro-tax establishment … marginal tax rates at all income levels remained much lower than they were from 1932-81. Thank Presidents Kennedy and Reagan for that, but also Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and especially Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y.
But thanks are also due to Reps. Bill Steiger, R-Wis., and Bill Thomas, R-Calif., for lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Despite all this widespread relief from onerous and punishing taxation, Sanders seems oddly nostalgic about President Eisenhower’s 19 tax brackets above 35 percent, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dreams of resuscitating a disastrous capital gains tax scheme Franklin Roosevelt was forced to abandon in 1938.
Neither the Kennedy tax rate reductions of 1964-65 nor the Reagan tax rate reductions of 1983-88 were enacted “to benefit the rich.” That is just a worn-out myth.
Learning about absenteeism
Alexandra Derian for the Urban Institute: In the United States, one in 10 students is chronically absent. Students who are chronically absent, those who miss 10 percent or more of the school year, receive lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school. Attending school every day is vital to a student’s success, making chronic absence one of the biggest threats to a student’s ability to perform well in school.
Often, students are absent because of challenging family circumstances or because they are dealing with physical and mental health issues. Geography also plays a role: Students living in poorer neighborhoods generally have more trouble with school and attendance.
Because a child’s individual characteristics and neighborhood can influence his or her academic success, policymakers and educators must begin to view chronic absenteeism as more than just an education issue.
To fully understand the causes of chronic absenteeism, better data are needed …
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) worked with the Allegheny County Department of Human Services. They found that certain neighborhood characteristics (e.g., high rates of violent crime and low median home prices) and property characteristics (e.g., age of a student’s home and tax delinquency) were linked to higher levels of chronic absenteeism for students in Pittsburgh’s public schools.
Additionally, researchers found that students who switched schools mid-year, possibly because of a move, were more likely to struggle with chronic absenteeism. Other individual and family factors, such as enrollment in human service programs and receipt of public benefits, also played a role.
Based on the research, stakeholders are creating a plan to work with community development corporations to improve housing and neighborhood conditions, assist families with housing needs and reduce student mobility.
Underemployment not because there aren’t capable workers
Dean Baker for the Center for Economic and Policy Research: One of the primary explanations we’ve heard for today’s low employment rate is that workers don’t have the right skills to land jobs in today’s economy. This line of thinking is often employed by people who argue that monetary and fiscal stimulus are unnecessary since the problem can’t really be lack of demand.
There are a host of reasons to suspect that this explanation is wrong. One such reason is the decline in prime-age (25-54) employment for both men and women since 2000 …
Since peaking in 2000, the prime-age employment rate has fallen for both groups. After dropping from a record high of 81.5 percent in 2000 to a trough of 78.8 percent in 2003, the prime-age employment rate climbed back up to 79.9 percent in 2007. When the financial crisis struck, the prime-age employment rate fell to 75.1 percent in 2010-11, and by 2015, it had only recovered to 77.2 percent …
This history should pose a serious challenge to those who push the “skills shortage” story over the “low demand” story. Which is more likely — that both men and women experienced a decline in skills in the early 2000s, a recovery in skills in the mid-2000s, a second drop in skills in the late 2000s and then another improvement in skills since 2011 … or that there has been a more general problem in the labor market which has negatively affected both groups?
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
