“A recent analysis from the Tax Foundation argues that the US federal income tax system remains solidly progressive. Citing new Internal Revenue Service data for tax year 2023, the group is emphasizing that high-income taxpayers pay the highest average tax rates and account for a large share of total income taxes paid. On its face, that claim sounds reassuring—a sign that our tax code must surely be doing its job. But this framing leaves out a critical part of the story. Yes, the wealthy pay more in taxes than everyone else. The real question: whether they’re paying enough, their fair share relative to their rapidly growing share of our nation’s income and wealth. By that measure, the answer must be a clear no. The US tax system, the underlying data show, remains far less progressive than it once was — and far less effective at counteracting inequality than it needs to be.” (05/07/26)
“Decades after a famous revolt by California homeowners led to the relief provided by Proposition 13, taxpayers acting to resist sky-high property taxes are making waves throughout the country.” (05/07/6)
“Productivity growth is an old concept; we’ve been seeing it at a substantial pace for more than 200 years. Nonetheless, many elite intellectual types like to claim they know nothing about it when they talk about AI. It’s far from clear how much of a productivity boom we will see with AI. For people who are lost with my reference to productivity growth, the story that AI will take all the jobs is a story of a massive productivity boom. If that happens, it will mean that the people who are still working will be hugely more productive, since we will be producing the same or more goods and services as we do at present, with many fewer people working. FWIW, virtually no major forecaster or forecasting agency is projecting anything like this productivity boom. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that productivity growth will average 1.5 percent over the next decade.” (05/07/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by William L Anderson
“When I was a child, California was really the Promised Land, something cemented in my mind when we came here on vacation in 1961. We saw mountains, Lake Tahoe, the bridges of San Francisco, the spectacular California Pacific coast, and, of course, we went to Disneyland. As a young adult, I ran track for the University of Tennessee and one of the annual highlights of the season was our dual meet with UCLA at Drake Stadium on the university’s campus. (I ran very well against UCLA’s runners, thank you). There really was no place that compared with California, a vast land of so many spectacular things. Unfortunately, there is still a vastness of things here, but many of them are spectacularly negative.” (05/07/26)
“Canada is set to host the headquarters of the proposed Defence, Security, and Resilience Bank, or DSRB, a new multinational institution designed to mobilize tens of billions in financing for military and security projects among allied nations. In short, what we are seeing is the quiet normalization of something far more consequential: the permanent financialization of war. The structure being envisioned for DSRB closely resembles other multilateral financial institutions. It would raise capital on global markets, issue bonds, and extend loans to governments and defense companies. That means funding for military supply chains, weapons systems, and defense infrastructure would increasingly flow through financial markets rather than direct public expenditure. In doing so, war itself risks being transformed from a political decision subject to public scrutiny into a financial product embedded in portfolios.” (05/07/26)
“I want to defend the idea that economics has some counter-intuitive propositions to offer. It does depend on what ‘intuitive’ means, though. I think it’s fair to say that something is intuitive if someone without formal training in the area can think it through on their own. If it takes an economist re-framing the issue to show the answer makes sense, it’s not necessarily intuitive. In other words, economics can be made intuitive, but it takes effort and skill.” (05/07/26)