<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Alan Reynolds</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/548c900a7284bab78fefca1721a23c8f/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:35:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Alan Reynolds on Mobility</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/alan_reynolds_on_mobility/#comment-3709164</link><description>My first job after college, as a trainee with JC Penney in Sacramento, paid $5400 in 1965.  Within three years I had two kids to support, but my income was up to about $7500.  I worked 48-54 hours a week and did grad studies at night at Sacramento State.  We had a 1956 Buick and a 1960 VW.  In 1971, I started writing about economics on the side. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My labor income peaked around 1999 (by working three jobs) and is now about a fourth of what it was then.  I know something about the lower and upper fifths of the income distribution and also about mobility between them.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alan Reynolds</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2005 10:06:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Obama - Show me the Money</title><link>http://myjourneytomillions.disqus.com/obama_show_me_the_money/#comment-13750572</link><description>I wrote that "the CFARB credits John McCain’s budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion" as a subtle suggestion that being nonprofit doesn't necessarily mean nonbiased.  Why do they assume we'll be spending $50 billion more per year in Iraq under McCain than under Obama?  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In an August 29 press release, this "committee" -- a front for the New America Foundation financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts - claims that $55 billion peace dividend plus "closing tax loopholes and tax havens and cutting spending on ineffective and inefficient government programs. . . could reduce the budget gap by between $200 and $250 billion, according to the analysis."  That really means according to Obama's advisers.  To claim such big revenues from closing loopholes and trimming waste is just smoke and mirrors.  Obama's plans for big spending and tax rebates, on the other hand, are not vague and not cheap.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alan Reynolds</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:35:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A Note on Income Data</title><link>http://cafehayek.disqus.com/a_note_on_income_data/#comment-13624103</link><description>&lt;p&gt;My WSJ article spoke of the &amp;quot;indivdiual income tax&amp;quot; (and shifting in and out of the corporate tax), but was very explicit in saying the data referred to tax returns, not households, and that top quintile taxpayers average two salaries per joint return.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the letter made a &amp;quot;good point&amp;quot; it was not a good point about anything I wrote.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alan Reynolds</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:16:54 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>