Posted on 01/05/2019 7:52:06 PM PST by Olog-hai
I have no idea how well Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will perform as a member of Congress. But her election is already serving a valuable purpose. You see, the mere thought of having a young, articulate, telegenic nonwhite woman serve is driving many on the right mad — and in their madness they’re inadvertently revealing their true selves. […]
The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance (although Republicans blocked him from an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board with claims that he was unqualified. Really.) And it’s a policy nobody has every implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history. […]
What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want. …
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
‘and in their madness they’re inadvertently revealing their true selves’
The irony of him, of all people, making that statement is delicious.
Krugman has the distinction of being the most discredited economist in history. And a Nobel winner, to boot.
Check Krugman’s B.A.C.
To pay for evil, power hungry people to rule our lives? What could go wrong?
Wait a minute. Krugman is a Marxist? Who knew?
Wonder if Kruggie sold off all his stocks after the Trump crash in November 2016, like he said he would?
Stick a Gun in Krugman’s Stomach and ask him to hand over all his hard earned money and see how he reacts.
Betcha he won’t be praising the Robber, but he praises an out of control tyrannical Government for doing the same thing to everyone else, albeit using different methods.
Let’s play along. If you live in New York City, you’ll pay the 75% Federal tax, the 8.8% New York State top income tax rate, and the NYC 3.9% top rate. That’s a total take of almost 88%.
Interestingly, the higher your Federal taxes are, the more dramatic the effect of State and local taxes on what’s left.
Krugman talks about roughly 75% Federal tax... which leaves 25%, of which New York City residents would have to give up more than half.
Everyone in high brackets would leave states and cities with signigicant local tax would run for the exits!
What the socialists really want isn’t a punishing income tax on the rich; rather, they want a wealth tax. Wait and see.
The same Leftie organization who has always given their prizes to their buddies on the far Left. Obama, Arafat, Gore, etc.
The Nobel prizes mean nothing as far as substance goes.
They have everything to do with the correct politics.
More about the Left patting themselves on their collective backs.
Everyone talks as though inequality was a bad thing. For all incomes to be equal must assume that all talents are equally distributed and valued and so is risk. If that is not the case, then there is no reason for incomes to be equal. Is Cortez really saying that the person flipping hamburgers is of equal value to the person who changes the warning light on top of the 2000' KVLY TV tower in ND? Contrary to popular belief, people from low income families do become rich, but only through effort. Far too often people are poor because they frittered away opportunities to improve themselves. Seeking income equality is a Fool's Errand, and this bimbo from NY is just the latest to take up the task.
Krugman forgot to say that she's clean.
I can only conclude that he's not as smart as Joe Biden.
Communism never looked so good.
Why stop at 70%?
Why not make it 100%? :)
Gee. Wonder why that jerkwad’s growth v tax rate chart stops before 2018?! Actually, I don’t. He is hiding the growth under President Trump.
To avoid the crushing, disincentivizing, exorbitantly high taxes.
There are a good many conservative economists who have won the Nobel Prize in Economics: Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Theodore Schultz, George Stigler, Ronald Coase, and Gary Becker.
Gees, let’s trot out Obama’s socialistic economists and use them to set marginal tax rates at 80% on the rich. Another Nobel Laureate, as long as you’re dropping names, said that the tax rate should be 17% for everyone, rich and poor, with no deductions of any kind. His name was Milton Friedman, and I’d stack him up against any of the economists mentioned here.
Also, since the top 10% already foot 72% of all tax receipts by the IRS while 51% pay nothing, I think the rich deserve a tax break so they can pay their fair share. As to you 51% parasites, you shouldn’t even get the right to vote. After all, no skin in the game, why should you?
It's the people who have fought long and hard to eventually start making a good income (that they hope to accumulate into wealth over time) that pay the price when taxes are raised. They are being punished for their drive, ambition, and enterprise. Many went years and years without making squat, with the expectation that if they continued to work hard it would eventually pay off.
Some went to school or trained for years to be a professional of some sort - accumulating student debt and making a pittance in the first years when they finally finished their training. Some took risks and put their sweat and blood into starting businesses. These kinds of people depend on their annual income, and play ‘catch up’ for years after they start earning. These are the people who will pay under an idiotic system like Krugman is espousing.
Of course, it won't affect people like Bloomberg, or any of the other - “I got mine, am beyond taxes, and look down my nose at you, but like the idea of being an ‘intellectual’ who talks theoretically about helping ‘little and needy people’ who won't ever dine with me or live near me” - types.
Justice would be if Krugman had to actually do a real days work. If he were 10% as intelligent and ‘thoughtful’ as his delusions lead him to believe he is, he would not hold the same views as he does. But, he's not. He's just a typical ‘my son is special’ POS from a lily white town in Nassau county who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground - but thinks he is an expert on social justice and should tell everyone else what to think. To debate him would be a real sleeper.
No different from the Swedes of the committee and those Swedes who put them there.
I’m glad my ancestors left long ago.
Bikinis not withstanding.
Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics...
—
People who write gutturals into their text such as “um” should be beaten with a wet noodle.
When high taxes drive out the well-to-do, it has the all-so convenient side benefit of concentrating power. With less well-to-do, all of a sudden elections for the 'Rats get a great deal easier.
Very blue states is quite a slippery slope, as they reach points of no return to being purple again.
On the other hand, red states don't have nearly the same consequence: they can turn purple, back red, back to purple. But, if/when they start tipping more blue, that's it for them. The liberalism ratchet effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.