Burgeoning numbers of the Ultra-wealthy (WSJ, 3/28)
"Trump's war is causing unintended problems -- excessive military spending at the expense of most social programs. Considering that Trump, rich politicians, and billionaires rarely pay much (if any) taxes, the rest of us will be footing the bill. Considering the number of hospitals already teetering on the edge, this huge increase in defense is ridiculous -- and all because Trump's delusions and tantrums have led to Congress to allow him start a war to soothe his ego." - WaPo comment
The March 28-29 WSJ Editorial (p. A12): 'The Higher Tax Wealth Flight Continues' ) was eye-opening but did not convert me from my existing position that cutting tax rates for high income people douses productivity. Yet, according to the Journal:
"As Democrats across the country seek to raise income taxes, the IRS on Friday released new data on state income migration that is a reality check on their ambitions. Even after the pandemic high tax states continue to lose tens of billions of dollars in taxable income to low tax states."
The bejabbering WSJ editors than lay it on:
"By comparison, all states without an income tax besides Alaska gained income from inter-state migration, including Florida ($20.6 billion).'
Maybe before jumping into this drivel, the WSJ's mavens ought to have inquired why Florida is experiencing significant reverse migration. This after all the wealthy newcomers learned what many of us (former Floridians) knew: the state isn't for everyone - especially if you like efficient public services and hate excessive heat and humidity as well as overpaying for insurance. Not to mention the bulk of available jobs are low productivity.
The sad and sobering fact? Rising home and fuel costs, extreme summer heat, high
insurance premiums, and, severe traffic congestion are driving a significant
"reverse migration" of new residents out of Florida. Data from 2025
indicates more people were leaving Florida than moving in, with many relocating
to the Midwest, Colorado, and the Northeast, reversing the pandemic-era boom.
How 'bout them apples, WSJ?
But seriously, if the WSJ editors had their heads less in the clouds of capitalism and more in reality, they might back off from the incessant yen to diss higher tax locations. Recall here, all tax cut "job creation" tripe emerged out of
"Supply Side Theory" which was actually invented by one
Arthur Laffer, in 1974, when he purportedly drew a curve on a paper napkin at a
restaurant, e.g.
and announced he'd found a "new theory that generates
wealth" while it cuts income (tax). (See, e.g. James Medoff and Andrew
Harless, The Indebted Society, 1995, p. 84, 'Let
Them Eat Cake'.)
The curve, as Medoff and Harless noted, purported to show the relation between
tax rates and revenues. A tax rate of zero naturally produces no revenue. As
taxes rise from zero, revenues rise in tandem. But as the rates rise, they
discourage the activities being taxed. So at some point, discouragement
predominates in the curve. (Laffer showed this with a splash of catsup over the
top of his curve, on the napkin.)
In fact, when Medoff and Harless removed the catsup stain from the graph,
and looked at actual data, they found (p. 87) that "high
tax rates are associated with higher productivity growth" There is a
consistent and strong relationship. Moreover this relationship is historical,
over decades and hence evidence -based, unlike Bush, Reagan and Romney's
"tax cuts create jobs" malarkey! By contrast, for the years when
supply side dogma held, and tax cuts were implemented, productivity
retreated by more than 30% and debt exploded- exactly the opposite of
what we've been sold.
Based on Medoff and Harless' data, one can offhand predict that within four
years of eliminating ALL the Bush - Trump tax cuts (middle class and for the
wealthiest) our national productivity will enhance at least 25% and our GDP
will actually GROW by 4-5% per year instead of the paltry 1-2% we've been
seeing. Removing ALL the tax cuts will also stabilize the tax landscape and
remove business uncertainty making corporations (still sitting on nearly $2.4
trillion in capital) invest not only in plant but labor! This labor investment
is what will then drive the job creation!
Another aspect concerns the issue of percentage of GDP used for defense. For those who may not have been following all the recent news, the Trumpers have been pushing a number of European - NATO countries to boost military-defense spending. Many have refused, including Spain's President Pedro Sanchez, because they grasp such a boost would force them to reduce social spending.
Even here in the U.S. we've known for decades that any increase in Pentagon spending limits the taxes allocated for critical social programs like Medicare, Social Security. Indeed, in a 2002 PBS NOW interview with Bill Moyer, former Pentagon Finance Analyst Chuck Spinney noted every increase of defense spending past a 2 percent of GDP threshold risked the stability of Social Security, Medicare. In his words, any such increase:
"was nothing less than a
war on domestic programs, including Social Security and Medicare".
The so-called European "welfare states" (a term invented by WSJ cowboy capitalists) know this which is why they are not interested in "boosting" defense spending.
By contrast, the orange buffoon in the WH now wants to increase defense spending by 40 percent - to $1.5 trillion (WSJ, today 'Trump’s Budget Breakthrough for Defense'). This budget proposal, if passed, would put an even bigger target on Social Security and Medicare. (Especially if Dems don't win back the House to control Trump's militaristic spending insanity.)
The misfit wackjob recently has gone so far as to say the government ought to stop funding Medicare as well as childcare across the board, to focus on his war of choice with Iran. Oblivious to the fact he will only obliterate more taxpayer dollars that can help millions afford healthcare (as well as childcare and senior care) instead.
Trump says government should stop funding Medicare, daycare to focus on war
Trump, like too many of his ilk, believe any tax money for public services is wasted, or "welfare". When in fact the Preamble to the Constitution itself notes that "promotes the General welfare" is one of the core purposes. NOT military welfare or Dotard welfare!
In a Nov. 10, 2025 post I exposed how Oprah herself was as brainwashed about the value of higher taxes to support public services, or what constitutes "socialism" in this country'
This was in one episode of her eponymous show when she raised the misbegotten fear of socialism and the welfare state taking hold in the U.S., earning a robust response from two Danish citizens, e.g.:
Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman about their social welfare state PRESCIENT!
As Oprah rambled on about "socialism" with a fearful expression, the two Danish woman on Skype quickly informed her:
"We think of it as being civilized. As taking care of each other...the elderly, the sick."
The Danes had clearly exposed Oprah's brainwashing - and Oprah is not a dumb American. But this same brainwashing is endemic in too many other Americans as well, infected with the rugged individualist bunkum.
The Danes response ties directly into higher taxation as opposed to tax cuts. Because democratic socialist nations use higher taxation - across the board not just on the rich - to make available the funding for public services whether education (free) or medical, or child care.
In other words, their citizens - unlike too many Americans- understand you don't get something for nothing. Want free education, including up to college, free health care like in Canada, free child care like in Norway? Then you need to be willing to pay the higher taxes to fund them. This is summed up in the highlight box below - from the exchange with the Danes:
So high taxation, often linked to socialism in this country, is really about having a civilized nation than a barbaric, i.e. 'dog eat dog' nation. Nor is this un-American. It was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who first said:
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
Which was intended to justify taxation as investment in public goods. There is no reason why this cannot be implemented here in the US of A given the latest WSJ article (March 28-29, p. 2A): 'Gains by the Superrich Alter the Economy', noting:
"The number of Americans worth tens of millions of dollars has boomed in the past few decades thanks to a rising stock market, lucrative private investments, and swelling valuations for small and midsize businesses."
But most Americans have not benefited for whatever reason. (I.e. "The wealthiest 10 percent account for 50% of consumer spending") Most can still not afford to buy a first home, far less a 2nd or 3rd, nor can they afford child care, or college. It is past time to share that wealth - via taxation on the "superrich" segment - as I am sure Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. would advocate too.
See Also:
by William Hartung | April 4, 2026 - 4:49am | permalink
It has been reported that the Pentagon on Friday will release a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 of almost $1.5 trillion, with approximately $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending contained in the department’s regular annual budget and an additional $350 billion dependent on Congress including it in a separate budget reconciliation bill.
Whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy. If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments.
The current war in the Middle East is a case study in the ineffectiveness of an overreliance on military force in seeking to make America or the world a safer place. In his first term, President Trump abandoned a multilateral agreement that was effectively blocking Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Six years later, in his second term, the president initially justified his disastrous intervention against Iran as being motivated by fears of that very same program.
Excerpt:
And:
And:
And:
