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.
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.
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.