[patrickg-zill]

Not mentioned: Amity Shlaes (the author of the article) also wrote a book about the Great Depression, called "The Forgotten Man". It is no surprise she would write about Atlas Shrugged.

From the blurb about the book on her site:

"Franklin Roosevelt systematically established the modern political constituency, from unions to artists, to senior citizens. Roosevelt's solution was to spend for these groups, so extensively that federal spending that year outpaced state and local spending, for the first time ever in peacetime. The consequence was the Roosevelt landslide of 1936 --but also the modern entitlement trap. Roosevelt often spoke of the Forgotten Man, the man "at the bottom of the economic pyramid." Yet, Miss Shlaes shows, his New Deal created a new forgotten man, the man who subsidizes the funding of other constituencies -- and who haunts politics in all developed nations today."

[khafra]

Any idea if her book is as flawed as the article? For instance, arguing that the top 1% of earners covered 26% of the tax burden in 1986 and 40% in 2006, without mentioning that since the top 1% took 11.3% of the income in 1986 and 22.06% in 2006, the tax rate on the top 10% of income actually decreased substantially? I try to avoid polemics that use statistics so disingenuously.

* http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[dantheman]

I don't think that's using statistics disingenuously; It is a fact that the top 1% covers 40% of the federal government's expenses. Even though the actual income tax rate has decreased they are still footing a huge portion of the bill, and it relates to the sentence after that where she says:"Yet President Barack Obama has made it clear he would like to see the rich pay a greater share." At some point no matter how rich someone is you have to say they've paid enough; I personally think it's a travesty that so much of the budget is paid for by so few.

[khafra]

I'm not sure you're getting the point of measuring taxes on income instead of on income earners--as a reductio ad absurdum, if the top 1% took in 99% of the income, and the total tax burden were a substantial portion of the total income, the top 1% would have to shoulder a significant portion of the tax burden. But any extended discussion along these lines really should move to http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8p79k/rands_atlas_...

[patrickg-zill]

I have not read "The Forgotten Man", may read it in the future.

Actually I thought the article was trying for an easy to understand "hook" with the tax info, since it is unlikely that the top 1% of earners are the bulk of those buying the $7.99 (or whatever it is) paperback edition at the local Barnes and Noble.