MartyB, I agree that some pretty smart people disagree here. But that is a meaningless statement when one of those smart people, David in cal, has dissembled in post after post after post, not the least of which: (1) defends the WSJ piece by stating "Either way, the chart would show that those with AGI between 50K and 500K earned well over half the income" without stating why he selected that particular income range, (2) states "The [TF] post really deserves no more credibility than some internet rumor or anonymous e-mail" when it was neither a rumor nor anonymous but instead a formally published piece, (3) makes the obvious statement "In fact, it's so expensive to live here in Silicon Valley that plenty of families with two working spouses earn considerably more than $200,000 but cannot afford the lifestyle that we associate with the rich: servants, yachts, independent wealth, mansions, routine use of limousines, etc." [REALLY David? I guess such people really ARE middle class then! Who could have known?] It's not that his posts are outright dishonest; it's that they're chock-a-block full of dissembling remarks that are confusing or off-point or make little sense. Why a smart person would do this repeatedly, I do not know. In any event, note that it was not Brendan who trashed the WSJ piece, but the Tax Foundation. What Brendan did was to express his surprise at the nature of the piece; report on various facts concerning its bizarre withdrawal; and partly foil the withdrawal by reproducing the piece.

David in cal, "why did Brendan blog about this Tax Foundation post?...The post really deserves no more credibility than some internet rumor or anonymous e-mail." Are you certain that you are commenting in good faith? Brendan blogged about the post because it was published by the Tax Foundation. It was not analogous to a rumor; it was instead a published post, one that its publisher concedes was not the result of a hacker. It was not analogous to an anonymous email; it was a post formally published by an fully-identified, well-known publisher. Again: Brendan blogged about it because it was a formally published post, and the fact that its publisher withdrew it in its entirety (as best it could) after publishing it is in itself noteworthy. This was not obvious to you?