Piketty's Progressive Economic Policies Fall Flat

French economist Thomas Piketty was the darling of the Left last year as the champion of progressive policy proposals — including an "80% tax rate on high incomes and progressive tax on great wealth" — to eradicate economic inequality.  He may have sold a lot of books, argues Michael Barone, but "his policies don't seem to be selling well anywhere."

There were no campaign ads calling for Piketty taxes this fall. Raising the minimum wage got some attention, but, writes Barone,

It is only slightly hyperbolic to say that an increased minimum wage is a transfer of income from fast-food customers to fast-food workers minus those who are replaced by kiosks. That's not a very effective way to sock it to the top 1 percent. ...

America already has lots of economic redistribution. American voters evidently sense that more redistribution would sap economic growth. They're willing to throw a little to minimum wage earners, but they don't want to kill the geese laying the golden eggs.

Piketty's progressive policies are faring no better in other nations.

Even in Brazil, with near-zero growth and mush greater inequality than the U.S., incumbent President Dilma Rousseff saw her percentage slip from 56 percent in 2010 to 52 percent this October.

In Britain, facing an election next May, there are calls within the Labour Party to oust leader Ed Miliband, who has called for freezing energy prices and a tax on "mansions," which would hit Londoners hard.

Piketty confesses he has seldom left Paris in his adult years. But even there his policies are in trouble. The job approval of Socialist President Francois Hollande, who imposed a top income tax rate of 75 percent, currently hovers just above 10 percent.

Politicians opposing massive economic redistribution have a hard time coming up with appealing rhetoric. But there seems to be something more powerful working in their favor — a widespread if 8unspoken understanding that government attempts to "spread the wealth around" (as candidate Obama once told Joe the Plumber) tend to destroy it instead.

Top 20% Pay Almost Everybody's Share

Based on the latest Congressional Budget Office annual report, the top 20% of American households in income pays the federal tax load that subsidizes almost all of the other 80% of American households, according to analysis by AEI economist Mark J. Perry.

Here is his chart:

And the numbers:

"We hear all the time [from the Left] that 'the rich' aren't paying their fair share and need to be taxed more," writes Perry. "We might want to start asking if the bottom 60% of  'net recipient' households are really paying their fair share."

Source: New CBO Study Shows That 'The Rich' Don't Just Pay Their 'Fair Share', They Pay Almost Everybody's Share, Mark J. Perry, American Enterprise Institute
Data Source: The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, Congressional Budget Office, November 2014

York: Start the OCare Money Redistribution

"What part of 'It's. The. Law.' don't you understand?" asks Byron York, seemingly of the White House that posted that very tweet weeks ago.

Just to add emphasis, in early June President Obama dismissed concerns that the national health care startup was not going well. "This is the way the law was designed to work," he told an audience in California. "Since everyone's saying how it's not going to happen, I think it's important for us to recognize and acknowledge that this is working the way it's supposed to."

Now, however, it appears the administration's bravado was all for show. At the same time Obama was expressing great confidence, White House officials were secretly meeting with representatives of big business to discuss ways to postpone enforcement of parts of the new law. And on Tuesday the White House announced that the employer mandate -- sometimes described as a "crucial" element of Obamacare -- will be delayed to 2015 from its scheduled start on Jan. 1, 2014.

Don't expect a similar delay (relief) for individual taxpayers or exchanges, however.

Obamacare is designed to increase the number of Americans who depend on the government to pay for health insurance. It will expand the Medicaid rolls, and it will give subsidies to millions of individuals and families to purchase insurance on the exchanges. In all, the government will be transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to Americans for health coverage.

The White House knows that once those payments begin, repealing Obamacare will no longer be an abstract question of removing legislation not yet in effect. Instead, it will be a very real matter of taking money away from people. It's very, very hard to do that.

So yes, retreating on the employer mandate was a big deal. But the White House would rather do that than endanger the flow of money that is the heart of Obamacare. The White House will not waver on that, no matter what Republicans say or do.