The New Republic's Jonathan Chait just keeps being wrong

Earlier today, I responded to the unsupported, and it turns out, false arguments by liberal Jonathan Chait that regulations and big government rarely end up serving big business.

Now I stumble across more wrongness by Chait, this time regarding taxes. I bring this up not just to harp on Chait's tendency to be wrong, but because this is a conflation many on the Left are making — and an imprecision of which many on the Right are guilty.

Let's start with this recent back-and-forth between Chait and libertarian writer Veronique de Rugy.

De Rugy writes this:

In other words, the main reason why rich people were paying a bigger share of the total income tax is that fewer people at the bottom were paying it — the overall number of people paying little or no income tax increased, hence the share of the burden on those paying taxes, especially at the top, grew.

I bolded some words there. You'll see why soon.

Chait responds by linking to this chart, claiming it shows that De Rugy's wrong. But read the footnotes of the chart to see what the chart talks about when it talks about tax burden: “(includes individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the estate tax).”

This is the way liberals get away with claiming the Bush tax cuts were “regressive”: They include in their math the payroll tax — which Congress and Bush didn't cut because it's supposed to fund Medicare and Social Security. When you cut everyone's income taxes, the payroll tax becomes a larger portion of people's total tax bill. Because payroll taxes are regressive, then the federal tax burden as a whole can become slightly less progressive.

But the De Rugy statement Chait claims to battling is that after the Bush tax cuts, “rich people were paying a bigger share of the total income tax.” This is correct, according to this data from the Tax Foundation.

Now, in Chait's defense, De Rugy at times was slightly imprecise, writing at times things like this: “the main impact the rate reduction had in the first place was to make the rich pay an even bigger share of taxes that they paid before.” She should have written “an even bigger share of INCOME taxes.”

But even when she was precise, Chait still changed the topic to be total federal taxes. It's hard to debate a guy who slides to different topics without acknowledging it.

Beltway ConfidentialUS

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Recology executives have acknowledged overcharging city ratepayers. (Mira Laing/2017 Special to S.F. Examiner)
Recology to repay customers $95M in overcharged garbage fees, city attorney says

San Francisco’s waste management company, Recology, has agreed to repay its customers… Continue reading

A construction worker watches a load for a crane operator at the site of the future Chinatown Muni station for the Central Subway on Tuesday, March 3, 2021. (Sebastian Miño-Bucheli / Special to the S.F. Examiner)
Major construction on Central Subway to end by March 31

SFMTA board approves renegotiated contract with new deadline, more contractor payments

(Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Settlement clears path for all youth, high school sports to resume in California

John Maffei The San Diego Union-Tribune All youth and high school sports… Continue reading

State to reserve 40 percent of COVID-19 vaccines for hard-hit areas

By Eli Walsh Bay City News Foundation State officials said Thursday that… Continue reading

Neighbors and environmental advocates have found the Ferris wheel in Golden Gate Park noisy and inappropriate for its natural setting. <ins>(</ins>
Golden Gate Park wheel wins extension, but for how long?

Supervisors move to limit contract under City Charter provision requiring two-thirds approval

Most Read