[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.

[Teacher317]

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

[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...

[kvanbrunt2]

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.>>>>
i find it interesting that the socialists have redefined the word income to mean wages. The supreme court changed the original meaning of the word “income” in the “glenshaw glass” case. Wages where not originally taxed under the law. income is derived from a source: stock appreciation, dividends etc.