The Economics of Soaking the Rich [Krugman <3 A.O.C.]

New York Slimes ^ | Jan. 5, 2018 | The Nobel Prize Winner Himself

[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. …

[allendale]

Krugman really does refuse to take his meds for days. Drives his family crazy.

[Rusty0604]

Krugman v. Krugman

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html

Krugman Kontradictions

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-04/krugman-kontradictions

[Political Junkie Too]

So Krugman wants to soak our top Hollywood movie stars and pop singers, and our top football, baseball, and basketball players?

Has anybody asked Steph Curry and LeBron James what they think about this? How about Kanye and Beyoncé?

-PJ

[HotHunt]

Doesn't negate my comments. The Nobel committee is a Leftie organization who rewards people of their own ilk.

Token conservatives thrown in here and there to make it look fair and impartial is not proof that they are....well....fair and impartial.

The former Nobel secretary admitted last week that it was a mistake to give the prize to Obama in 2009 before he had accomplished a thing. It was completely political he said. They thought it would strengthen his presidency. They finally realized he didn't pass muster and now regret giving it to him.

It took them long enough to figure out what the rest us of have known since Obama was "awarded" the phony prize. He wasn't deserving of it.

The bloom is off the rose now. Tarnished the NPP and diminishes its relevance and importance going forward. They've admitted it is not the exclusive prize it once was.

[nathanbedford]

So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort — and conversely the cost of their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay.

What unmitigated arrogance! Krugman's assumption is that our dysfunctional Congress, our unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats can more wisely spend our money then can we ourselves. Let the wise elite allocate our money after it is confiscated and it will be put to better use. Krugman assumes that dollars spent by government bring more economic value to the people than investments made by people themselves.

It is not just a question of whether to buy a flatscreen TV or spend money on school tuition, the power to invest one's money, money left to the people only because it is not confiscated by the government, is the liberty to make economic decisions based on the life experience of the people who actually earned the money. People who know better than Nancy Pelosi, or some bureaucrat or even better than Anastasia Occasional-Cortex where the most profitable return for investment can be made. If it were otherwise the Soviet Union would actually have buried us as promised.

I have recounted the story of writing a book review in college over the new, new thing captivating the left of 1962, The Affluent Society, by John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith's message was that people are stupid and so they squander their money on fins and chrome on their cars when they should be investing in sewers and more money for professors like himself at Harvard. Therefore he, like Krugman, would take the choice away from the individual and empower government to make these economic choices with our money.

Krugman's Marxist nostrums are not new, they are as old as tyranny and as old as Genesis, he and John Kenneth Galbreath would be gods.

[KarlInOhio]

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. […]

Step 1. Blast most of the productive capacity of the world into smoldering rubble.

Step 2. Implement stupid economic policies because your potential competitors look like this:

And anyone who wants to escape the high US taxes has nowhere else to go.

Since step one hasn't been done, we can't escape the natural economic effects of step 2. Beijing and Brussels will thank Occasional-Cortex for her tax plan for the US.

[Huskrrrr]

Earth to Kruger, she’s a bimbo.

[boop]

Well said.

Even under FDR, there were tax breaks and incentives to "offset" the ridiculous rates.

In the 70s you used to be able to deduct credit card interest, three martini business lunches,and a LOT of other things.

So yeah, the taxes on "income" were very high,but you could deduct a booty load of things back then.

Not to mention that we're talking INCOME taxes, as in what is on your W-2 form.

Warren Buffet, like Mark Zuckerberg takes a nominal income, so yeah, their secretaries pay more in INCOME taxes, but those guys don't derive their wealth from income.

They have their wealth from ownership and stocks.

If they sell their holdings they pay taxes on capital gains, which are nowhere near 70%.

And thank God.

Imagine the havoc that would ensue over a total wealth tax.

Anyone with investments, like a 401K retirement program would be screwed royally.

That's a *lot* of people.

Certainly not wealthy, either.

[BeauBo]

“we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich”

He pretends that this is economics, rather than politics (or simple plunder).

[Teacher317]

Death/estate taxes are already a wealth tax, mostly good for destroying family farms.

[KC_for_Freedom]

The rule in economics is roughly stated that if you want more of something, reduce the tax on it. If you want less of something, raise the tax. This applies to wealth, if you would like to have a society that can achieve wealth, do not tax the means people use to obtain wealth.

I realize your post was about the very wealthy, and I do wonder what it would be like to never have to worry about how something was going to be paid for.

But the fairest tax — if we must have government — is something that is even in society. I favor a tax on purchases and if you wish you can exclude various items that are necessary for life from this list.

Taxing earnings is nuts, and so it taxing investments, because both of these means for obtaining wealth lead to a growing society and the ability of people to move up in the wealth category.

[greedo]

And now a few words from Ho Chi Minh, on excessive taxation:

Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

“They (France) have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.”

[allblues]

Virtually every Krugman column I’ve had the misfortune to read can be boiled down to four words. Republicans bad, Democrats good. The rest is just filler.

[rawcatslyentist]

Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate

Yeah, the Nobel prizes don't mean much anymore. I mean they gave one for peace to the man who destabilized the ME into an all out war zone.

[rawcatslyentist]

If it were otherwise the Soviet Union would actually have buried us as promised.

But the Soviet Union did Barry us!

[SandwicheGuy]

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.

That.

And why do they fritter away their opportunities? We know why. Government policies put in place by failed used car salesmen and similar, elected by people who want two chickens in every pot, paid for by others.

[Lockbox]

As Chairman and Publisher, The New York Times at NEW YORK TIMES CO -CL A, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. made $5,374,730 in total compensation.

Glass Houses

[SandwicheGuy]

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?

I don't think you are alone in in your thoughts. Something will happen, probably happening already, that will become clear in time, that will rectify this.

[Pollster1]

I personally knew Krugman long before he became the old arrogant socialist we see these days. Back then, he was a young arrogant socialist, but just as obnoxious. When I pointed out to him that those earning very high incomes have the leverage to demand an even higher compensation, obtaining their desired after-tax income at the expense of the middle-income consumers who indirectly pay their income in whatever form (I used the example of corporate lawyers and the customers of the companies that employ those lawyers), his response was that it doesn’t matter since government still gets the money it needs. Not only is this scum advocating for high taxes on working families, misleadingly packaged as “tax the rich”, he knows it too and doesn’t care.

[miniTAX]

“If they sell their holdings they pay taxes on capital gains, which are nowhere near 70%.”

---

I was sure Krugman is telling porkies when he trots out such numbers but was saying to myself, this fraud is such a con man it’s a waste of time to debunk his litany of lies. So thank you for clarifying.
In other word, Krugman, the maxist defender of the workers, is advocating high taxation of work and low taxation of capital. Talk about irony...