Be Careful What You Wish for, Mr. Brooks

On Friday’s NPR “Week in Politics” roundup, conservative columnist David Brooks said America had to make a choice between a “redistribution” of wealth, in which the rich would pay substantially more in taxes, and a “meritocratic” approach, in which “you give people the tools to compete and succeed.”  E.J. Dionne replied that this was a false choice.  In fact, the rich would be much better off under a redistribution policy than under one that truly gave people the tools to compete.

            Why? Because really giving people a level playing field (as we always say, even though very few games above the sandlot level are ever played on a tilted playing field) would mean giving them equal starts in life, at least through college.  Now hang on readers, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, filled with big numbers.  But I was an English major, and if I can get through it, I have confidence you can too.  And let's stop at high school, for convenience.

            Let’s take 90% of the 73 million U.S. children under 18, and consider what it would cost to give them the same “tools to compete” as the top 10%. 

            I expect the costs to level the playing field for the 65 million constituting would have to include at least these:

• ·      Equal quality of health care, including pre-natal care
• ·      Equal quality of education, from pre-school through high school
• ·      Equal nutrition
• ·      Equal access to technology
• ·      Equal provision of safe home and neighborhood conditions

The cost of health insurance alone would be at least $150 billion  (calculating the cost of a high-quality health plan, then generously presuming that the 65 million are averaging half that now).

Equal education, based  on the average cost of an independent school education like the Bush, Obama, Biden, and Jobs children had or have, versus the average cost of public education, and adding pre-school costs for all, would cost around $750 million.

Spending $1000 a year to give each child ages 6-17 a computer and internet access at home, and just $30 a week to provide better nutrition, adds another $120 billion to the total  (assuming a quarter already have access to these).

      The last item, safe homes and neighborhoods, is probably so enormous as to be incalculable, but just increasing the number of police and firefighters by 25% would cost $17 billion annually.

That’s a grand total of just over $1.1 billion.  Today, according to the Heritage Foundation (no friends of redistribution) the top tier pays 71% of all income taxes, or $835 billion.  So their taxes would have to be raised by 130% in order to level the old playing field.  That would mean a top tax rate of around 70%, compared to the 28-35% brackets that exist now.  So Mr. Brooks would be wise to accept redistribution by raising the top rates 10% as a much less costly alternative.

Next Blog: What would America be like if everyone could “compete and succeed,” and what would we mean by success?  And a lot fewer numbers.