Posted on 10/03/2019 10:42:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Does this sound like a healthy economy to you?
* In nine of the last 10 years, the economy has grown more slowly than professional forecasters had predicted.
* Annual G.D.P. growth has not reached 3 percent in almost 15 years.
* Median net worth for American households has declined, after adjusting for inflation, since the late 1990s.
Those are all big warning signs. They show that the United States is suffering through an era of slow growth — and that the gains from that growth are flowing disproportionately to a small slice of mostly affluent households, making the gains for everyone else even smaller than the disappointing G.D.P. statistics would indicate.
All of which leaves me perplexed by some of the commentary about the wealth taxes proposed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. From a story in The Times: “The idea of redistributing wealth by targeting billionaires is stirring fierce debates at the highest ranks of academia and business, with opponents arguing it would cripple economic growth, sap the motivation of entrepreneurs who aspire to be multimillionaires and set off a search for loopholes.”
There are two problems with the arguments from these opponents.
First, they’re based on a premise that the American economy is doing just fine and we shouldn’t mess with success. But as the statistics above make clear, the economy is not doing fine. The country should be looking for new approaches.
Second, while it’s plausible that a wealth tax might further depress economic growth, it’s also plausible that a wealth tax would accelerate economic growth. Somehow, the opponents leave out that part.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Keep punishing successful people until economic growth improves.
That’ll work.
HERE’s HIS ARGUMENT:
The American economy is suffering from extreme inequality. A large portion of society’s resources are held by a tiny slice of people, who aren’t using the resources very efficiently.
While it’s theoretically possible that some entrepreneurs and investors might work less hard because of a 2 percent annual tax on their holdings above $50 million (the tax threshold under the Warren plan), thus sapping economic growth, It’s more likely that any such effect would be SMALL — and more than OUTWEIGHED by the return that the economy would get on the programs that a wealth tax would finance, like education, scientific research, infrastructure and more. Those basic investments all have a long record of lifting economic growth.
(OK, not arguing in favor of his ideas, just summarizing what his arguments amount to ).
HERE’s HIS ARGUMENT:
The American economy is suffering from extreme inequality. A large portion of society’s resources are held by a tiny slice of people, who aren’t using the resources very efficiently.
While it’s theoretically possible that some entrepreneurs and investors might work less hard because of a 2 percent annual tax on their holdings above $50 million (the tax threshold under the Warren plan), thus sapping economic growth, It’s more likely that any such effect would be SMALL — and more than OUTWEIGHED by the return that the economy would get on the programs that a wealth tax would finance, like education, scientific research, infrastructure and more. Those basic investments all have a long record of lifting economic growth.
(OK, not arguing in favor of his ideas, just summarizing what his arguments amount to ).
To all you young folks out there contemplating a career—you want to be a tax lawyer.
The rich people will be begging to pay _you_—instead of Uncle Sam!
“You are sentenced to be hanged by the neck until you cheer up!”
Government confiscating earnings is good for the economy?
NYT is celebrating Red China’s birthday a day early.
Sounds like Krugman lunacy. He’s got a disciple, I see.
Up is Down
White is Black
Just repeat after us
RE: Sounds like Krugman lunacy. He’s got a disciple, I see.
Well, you’re right there. He mentioned Krugman in this op-ed.
His argument is government spending alone determines growth.
The ONLY thing that will grow is the CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!!
RE: His argument is government spending alone determines growth.
Actually, it is this — government working to DECREASE the gap between rich and poor pushes up growth.
arbeit macht frei
Or it could have no effect at all. That about covers all the possibilities, doesn't it? That's some pretty solid economics right there...
Notice to get all their “doomday” stats, they have to stretch out the timeframe to include the Obama years, or even back into the Clinton years!
Duh, The Chosen One was talking down the economy for his eight years in office. His programs were killing businesses.
No. The IRS has enough power already.
Don’t believe the scaremongering. Uncle Joe Stalin runs a benevolent People’s Republic and nobody was murdered. </NewYorkTimes>
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.