The press keeps pounding an ignorant leftist drum about taxes and growth

I have to wonder why so much of the press is so desperate to get its economics wrong.

They all do it, but take my local paper, the State Journal-Register, which didn't fact-check the opinion piece by Ralph Martire (which is essentially a Democrat campaign ad) titled "A graduated rate income tax is in Illinois' best interests" before running it, and there are some glaring errors.

Ralph Martire has never seen a tax hike he didn't like.  He writes:

Over the last decade, the nine no-tax states lagged the nine highest tax states in every major economic indicator, including growth in state GDP; GDP per capita; and personal income.

Well, that's so wrong that it looks more like a lie.  An article by U.S. News and World Report actually ranks the best states for growth, and the top two states on its list are Washington and Florida, which are no-income tax states.  All graduated income tax states rank below them.  Florida ranks #12, and North Dakota ranks #20, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Then Martire makes this argument:

Since 1979, the wealthiest 10 percent have realized 108 percent of all real, inflation-adjusted growth in income nationally, leaving 90 percent of workers earning less in real terms now than three decades ago.

For proof this is how things work, consider the relative economic performance of the nine states that have the highest top income tax rates, when compared to the nine states in America with no income tax at all.  The non-income tax states include those frequently lauded as "economic marvels," like Texas, Florida and North Dakota.  Over the last decade, the nine no-tax states lagged the nine highest tax states in every major economic indicator, including growth in state GDP; GDP per capita; and personal income.

To go back to the U.S. News list: Washington #1, Florida #2, Nevada #9, Texas #12, North Dakota #20.  While California does well at #5, Minnesota is #24, Hawaii is #32, New York is #34, Vermont is #39, New Jersey is #45, and Connecticut is #48.

Then he makes the statement that since 1979, the wealthiest 10% have realized 108% of all income growth.  That statement is a version of the Democrat talking points that the rich get richer while others are left behind, and the statement is used to gin up class envy and hate as an excuse for the greedy government to take more money.  The government never seems to get enough for Democrats.

The statement is an absolute lie because it is actually immeasurable, since so many individuals who were in the top 10% in 1979 are dead or aren't earning much, and so many individuals in the top 10% today weren't alive or weren't earning any money yet in 1979.  The only way to actually measure the number that Martire talks about would be to look at all the individuals in the top 10% in 1979 and add their specific income up and then compare it to the rest of us.

Somehow, most people spewing forth these talking points don't seem to understand that people and businesses move both up and down the economic ladder.

For example: Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world now, and he was not in the top 10% in 1979.  Same for Bill Gates.

Mark Zuckerberg and the founders of Google weren't born yet in 1979, and they are in the top 10%.

Lebron James and almost all the top-paid athletes were not born in 1979.

Very few of the highly paid actors, athletes, and musicians earning the most money today had been born by 1979.

Almost all the talking heads on TV who spew forth the Democrat talking points are making huge money today and were not around in 1979.

The Clintons and Obamas were not in the top 10% in 1979, but they sure earn a lot of money today.

Very few of the top CEOs who make big money today were in the top 10% in 1979.

Think of how many people have become rich as Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft stocks have soared while other companies that were huge in 1979 collapsed.

Martire's true statement is that the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% are richer than the richest people five, ten, and twenty years ago, but since they are not the same people, it is not true to say the rich are getting richer.  My guess is almost all the people who complain about the rich getting richer are richer themselves than they were years ago.

Thank goodness that the richest people are richer than the richest people a few years back, because otherwise the economy would be shrinking.  We should celebrate that as a society we are getting richer instead of denigrating people.

The Democrats gin up class envy and hate as an excuse to amass money and power for themselves.  It is truly disgusting for people to say "you didn't build that" when you succeed in order to confiscate more for themselves and the government.  Democrats, including most of the media, obviously would rather have more people be dependent on government instead of being given opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

It is truly a shame that most of the media will just collude with Democrats and print talking points as if such claims were true instead of actually doing research.  All AP writers and Washington Post writers should be fact-checked on economics because they all make similar mistakes.  After all, the media are supposed to inform instead of campaign for a specific party and its policies.

I have to wonder why so much of the press is so desperate to get its economics wrong.

They all do it, but take my local paper, the State Journal-Register, which didn't fact-check the opinion piece by Ralph Martire (which is essentially a Democrat campaign ad) titled "A graduated rate income tax is in Illinois' best interests" before running it, and there are some glaring errors.

Ralph Martire has never seen a tax hike he didn't like.  He writes:

Over the last decade, the nine no-tax states lagged the nine highest tax states in every major economic indicator, including growth in state GDP; GDP per capita; and personal income.

Well, that's so wrong that it looks more like a lie.  An article by U.S. News and World Report actually ranks the best states for growth, and the top two states on its list are Washington and Florida, which are no-income tax states.  All graduated income tax states rank below them.  Florida ranks #12, and North Dakota ranks #20, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Then Martire makes this argument:

Since 1979, the wealthiest 10 percent have realized 108 percent of all real, inflation-adjusted growth in income nationally, leaving 90 percent of workers earning less in real terms now than three decades ago.

For proof this is how things work, consider the relative economic performance of the nine states that have the highest top income tax rates, when compared to the nine states in America with no income tax at all.  The non-income tax states include those frequently lauded as "economic marvels," like Texas, Florida and North Dakota.  Over the last decade, the nine no-tax states lagged the nine highest tax states in every major economic indicator, including growth in state GDP; GDP per capita; and personal income.

To go back to the U.S. News list: Washington #1, Florida #2, Nevada #9, Texas #12, North Dakota #20.  While California does well at #5, Minnesota is #24, Hawaii is #32, New York is #34, Vermont is #39, New Jersey is #45, and Connecticut is #48.

Then he makes the statement that since 1979, the wealthiest 10% have realized 108% of all income growth.  That statement is a version of the Democrat talking points that the rich get richer while others are left behind, and the statement is used to gin up class envy and hate as an excuse for the greedy government to take more money.  The government never seems to get enough for Democrats.

The statement is an absolute lie because it is actually immeasurable, since so many individuals who were in the top 10% in 1979 are dead or aren't earning much, and so many individuals in the top 10% today weren't alive or weren't earning any money yet in 1979.  The only way to actually measure the number that Martire talks about would be to look at all the individuals in the top 10% in 1979 and add their specific income up and then compare it to the rest of us.

Somehow, most people spewing forth these talking points don't seem to understand that people and businesses move both up and down the economic ladder.

For example: Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world now, and he was not in the top 10% in 1979.  Same for Bill Gates.

Mark Zuckerberg and the founders of Google weren't born yet in 1979, and they are in the top 10%.

Lebron James and almost all the top-paid athletes were not born in 1979.

Very few of the highly paid actors, athletes, and musicians earning the most money today had been born by 1979.

Almost all the talking heads on TV who spew forth the Democrat talking points are making huge money today and were not around in 1979.

The Clintons and Obamas were not in the top 10% in 1979, but they sure earn a lot of money today.

Very few of the top CEOs who make big money today were in the top 10% in 1979.

Think of how many people have become rich as Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft stocks have soared while other companies that were huge in 1979 collapsed.

Martire's true statement is that the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% are richer than the richest people five, ten, and twenty years ago, but since they are not the same people, it is not true to say the rich are getting richer.  My guess is almost all the people who complain about the rich getting richer are richer themselves than they were years ago.

Thank goodness that the richest people are richer than the richest people a few years back, because otherwise the economy would be shrinking.  We should celebrate that as a society we are getting richer instead of denigrating people.

The Democrats gin up class envy and hate as an excuse to amass money and power for themselves.  It is truly disgusting for people to say "you didn't build that" when you succeed in order to confiscate more for themselves and the government.  Democrats, including most of the media, obviously would rather have more people be dependent on government instead of being given opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

It is truly a shame that most of the media will just collude with Democrats and print talking points as if such claims were true instead of actually doing research.  All AP writers and Washington Post writers should be fact-checked on economics because they all make similar mistakes.  After all, the media are supposed to inform instead of campaign for a specific party and its policies.