"I hate to say this on Fox, and I hope I'll be allowed to leave here alive, but I don't think there is anyway we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference," Stein said. "We going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes of like say, 2, 3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down." OP
HA Ha ha!
Ben Stein? Really?........... Okay!
He was first a poverty lawyer in New Haven, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. before becoming a trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission.[5]
Stein's first teaching stint was as an adjunct professor, teaching about the political and social content of mass culture at American University in Washington, D.C. He subsequently taught classes at University of California, Santa Cruz on political and civil rights under the United States Constitution. At Pepperdine University in Southern California, Stein taught libel law and United States securities law and its ethical aspects. He was a professor of law at Pepperdine University Law School, from about 1990 to 1997.[6]
Stein was the commencement speaker for the Liberty University 2009 graduation on Saturday, May 9, at Williams Stadium.[7] At this ceremony, the University awarded him an honorary degree. According to the school, Stein "delivered a message about creationism, patriotism, and value for humanity to graduates and their families."[8]
If you care to notice none of Ben's academic background qualifies him as an economist. Great guy for sure but no economist. This could be the reason he has no concept of his error in understanding dynamic economic scoring in relation to federal revenues.
His correlation between tax rates / economic growth for a thirty year period between WWII and the seventies in relation to our current economic dilemma is not only wrong it is pointless. It's the old "apples and oranges" thing. The extenuating economic circumstances of the period of time he speaks in no way compare to what has happened since. He makes the same mistake the president does when targeting "the super rich" and not identifying his definition of "the super rich" only saying he doesn't think 250K annual qualifies. 2,3,4,5 million or whatever. Just throw numbers around for the hell of throwing numbers around.
The fact is Ben Stein is no economist and demonstrates only a layman's understanding of economics at best. And the truth is no one would even give his economic musings the time of day if it weren't for the movie "Ferris Buhler's Day Off".
I could find you videos of Mr. Stein saying the exact opposite only a short while back so he has a habit of inconsistency and confusion.
In a nutshell Ben is fun to watch but no economist.
....................................................Thomas Sowell