Taxing the rich reduces innovation, jobs and economic growth.  How?  Look at a company that started small and got big - Facebook.

When Facebook began it was just a couple people.  But once it got going, that didn’t last long.  They needed programmers.  The programmers needed computers, desks, offices, and office supplies.  The programmers’ computers had operating systems and development tools and databases.  Facebook also needed servers, data centers, back up power sources, server racks and cooling systems.

Facebook could buy those things because rich people had the money to invest in a risky start up.  Those things were available for Facebook to buy because other people previously invested in capital-intensive companies to make those things.  Computers, software, desks, lamps, servers, data centers, office buildings, etc. don’t build themselves.  They require allocation of existing capital.

When government raises taxes (on any group, but particularly the wealthy), it reduces the pool of money available to build computers, software, desks, and lamps, or to invest in new, innovative ideas like Facebook.  That means goods that are never built, innovative companies that die for lack of investment and jobs that are never created.

Of course the rich have the money to pay higher taxes.  But it’s the rest of us that pay the price.

We shouldn’t tax what we want more of. And the real problem with the capital gains tax isn’t the rate or how it is structured, but what is taxed: gains on investments, which are savings put to work. Economists of all stripes have been saying Americans have consumed too much and invested too little over the past decade. So why would we want to tax investment even heavier, as the Obamacrats want to do?

Or put another way, you can use your money to consume goods now, paying a 6%-or-so sales tax in the process, or you can risk your money by investing it and then pay a 15% tax capital gains tax, plus the metaphorical “inflation tax” followed by a 6%-or-so sales tax when you use the money to consume goods. That is raw deal for investors.

Here’s a quote from the city’s FAQ.

even where such mandates [federal or state background check requirements] exist, most employers will be able to comply with both Ban the Box and the state or federal law by waiting until after the first interview to make criminal history inquiries; unless the state or federal law specifically requires that the inquiry be made on the employment application or during the first interview, employers are required to comply with Ban the Box.

Translation: even if you are required by law to perform a background check for a position where a criminal conviction will be an absolute disqualifier, you have to spend the money to process the application and perform an interview before you can ask whether the applicant has a criminal record.  Of course, this won’t actually stop an employer from refusing to hire someone with criminal conviction.  It will only raise the cost of doing business in the city.  Brilliant.

One of Progressivism’s foundational beliefs is that “experts” should manage the economy and people’s lives by regulating, restricting, encouraging and subsidizing some things but not others, based on what the “experts” deem to be in the best interests of the nation.  This means, of course, that decisions will be made for political and ideological reasons rather than economic ones (even granting the benefit of good intentions and the absence of corruption other than the intellectual variety).

Assume for the moment that this management of people and the economy is initially inefficient but sustainable, by being of limited scope.  What happens?  The corporations and individuals involved in activities favored by the “experts” gain an advantage and thus begin to accumulate wealth and power in a proportion greater than they would have otherwise.

This has two effects.  First, it attracts more companies and individuals to the favored activities in search of money and power.  Second, is that it encourages the already powerful and connected, in addition to those seeking to gain wealth and power, to demand that the scope of things being managed by the “experts” be expanded so they can capture the advantages for themselves.

And so the death spiral begins.

Over time, decisions are increasingly made by “experts” without regard to their economic viability.  The expansion of the scope of the “experts’” control quickens.  Money and power flow to the well connected.  Soon enough the “experts” in one part of government are encouraging things that “experts” in another part of government are discouraging.  The taxes needed to support the system suck money from the independent private sector and flow to the “experts”, the bureaucrats and their cronies in the parasitic private sector (those favored by the “experts”).

As the economically unviable activities expand, they begin to crowd out the viable ones, producing calls for more action, which further accelerates the death spiral.  At some point, the economically viable activities in the independent private sector are simply unable to keep pace with the demands of the unviable endeavors required by the “experts” and collapse becomes inevitable.

By collapse, I don’t mean society falls apart and it’s every man for himself.  What I mean is: Greece and the rest of Europe (which will be us before long).  The bill comes due, the debt has to be paid, government austerity becomes a requirement, the cronyism and unviable projects have to be unwound.  In short, Progressivism has to be undone.  To the previously favored, the cronies of Progressivism, it is shocking and painful.

Because Progressivism has no internal ideological check, there is no line within it that says “here and no further” in its drive to regulate and manage.  In other words, once Progressivism takes root it will inevitably destroy itself.

4 out of 14 students answered yes.  Of the 4 gun owners, two were women.

If this is a representative sample, that would mean something like 45 people in my class (about 30%) are gun owners, including a couple dozen women.  For an overwhelmingly left-leaning law school in the northeastern U.S., that is not so bad.

We’re winning.

• iPhones
• Google
• Laptops
• Email
• The Internet
• High Speed Internet at Home
• Ubiquitous Air Conditioning
• Flatscreen TVs

Not only are they the products of growth but they are often engines of further growth.  When you reduce growth, you reduce the standard of living.

• Can I go to Congress in person and speak to my Congressman about an issue?
• Can I go to Congress in person with my attorney and speak to my Congressman about the issue?
• Can I go to Congress in person with my attorney, whose fee I am splitting with a friend, and speak to my Congressman about the issue?
• If my friend is going to Congress in person with his attorney, can I save myself a trip, split the fee for his attorney, and let them speak to our Congressman about the issue?
• Can I skip the trip and just tell my attorney to write a letter to my Congressman about the issue for me?
• Can I tell my attorney to write a letter to the editor about the issue for me?
• Can I tell my attorney to write a commentary piece for publication about the issue for me?
• Can I place the commentary in the newspaper as an open letter by taking out a full page “advertisement”?
• Can I skip the attorney and place a typical advertisement about the issue in a newspaper?
• Can I skip the advertisement and post a 2 minute video of me, individually, discussing the issue on You Tube? 5 minutes? Movie length?
• Can I hire someone to produce a 2 minute video about the issue to post on You Tube? 5 minutes? 60 minutes?  Movie-length?
• Can I hire someone to produce a 2 minute video about the issue and pay a TV station to run it as an advertisement?
• Can I hire someone to produce a movie-length video about the issue and pay a TV station to run it as an infomercial?
• Can I split the cost with a friend to run the video advertisement? The infomercial?
• Can I pool my resources with a group of people to run the video advertisement? The infomercial?
• Can the same group of people, having incorporated, place the same advertisement about the same issue in a newspaper? Run the same video advertisement?  The same infomercial?
• Can I skip the items above and just give the money to a candidate who agrees with me on the issue?
• Can I pool my resources with a group of people to give money as individuals to a candidate who agrees with me on the issue?
• Can the same group of people, having incorporated, give money to a candidate who agrees with them on the issue?