Posted on 11/20/2012 4:38:46 PM PST by Kaslin
I would also note that:
* The state, local, and sales taxes were much lower. Today, if the Fed Gov took 91%, the top bracket would have an effective tax rate above 100%.
* This maximum bracket, in your article, was applied to the .01%. That’s billionaires, not millionaires and billionaires, or $250,000 in annual income-aires. Krugman would push very high tax rates down to the 1 or 2% level. The .01% is a much rarer bird.
This article provides the historical background for Krugman’s position. i wonder if Krugman would like all the other things that made up the 1950’s? Polo, nuclear bomb drills, and lets not even think about civil rights and feminism.
With the generous deductions available in the 1950’s no one actually paid 91%, in fact the wealthy could often reduce their rates to near zero using some creative accounting measures.
I believe Krugman knows this and is just simply a chronic liar with an agenda.
I’ve had this arguement with Krugman loving liberals. They are ignorant about what grows the private sector. They fully embrace the idiocy of You Didn’t Build That. They’re Marxists who deny the label.
Thus the reason the AMT was invented. I think there were 50 Taxpayers that it was supposed to affect, nowadays it’s 10 Million or so if I recollect.
Krugman is something I scrape off the bottom of my shoe when I step in a pile of Dog crap.
Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
All you need to know about the Nobel Prize...
Yeah, the Nobel Prize would be a good tool to scrape the crap off my shoe.
Using Krugman’s logic (oxymoron), the Bush era Tax Rate Cuts would have resulted in Federal Tax Revenues dropping by 35% instead of INCREASING by 35%.
Not to mention there used to be even more tax shelters and deductions. The 86 tax law really pruned those. Everyone played extensive tax games.
Krugman claimed that the rich paid something like 70% after all was said and done, and I really doubt it.
“Using Krugman’s logic (oxymoron), the Bush era Tax Rate Cuts would have resulted in Federal Tax Revenues dropping by 35% instead of INCREASING by 35%.”
And he would STILL maintain his position. He is an idealogue who deletes important facts and deliberately misinterprets things.
I read Krugman’s article yesterday. His glaring omission of what happened after the tax rate was lowered down from 91% is either by choice or stupidity.
He’s not an economist. He’s an Econo-propagandist and deserves his noble prize in economics as much as Obama deserved his noble peace prize.
Interesting that you should mention Nobel Prizes—my wife and I had that same discussion today. We noted the unworthies that recently have received Nobel prizes of various sorts: Krugman, Arafat, Zerobama, Al Gore, the IPCC, the EEU, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, the UN. The peace prize in particular has no meaning any more.
Hamas will receive the next peace prize
The prizes have become an exercise in self-congratulation among liberals.
There is seemingly nothing that liberals touch that they cannot trivialize.
Krugman won an Academy Award or something for figuring out that two-bits is the same as a quarter. The man’s a genius.
No wonder they vote for Communism....they've been taught about "Mean White Rich Guys", and "you have Rights to what others earned".....
The following opinion is based on information found in the first chart contained at the following link.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Since 1960, tax revenues collected at a federal level have averaged 15-20% of GDP. This average has held pretty much constant over a 50 year period that has had many changes to tax codes and tax rates. So, what can we get from this? In the same way that 15% of $100 is $15, and 15% of $200 is $30, we see that the real way to increase tax revenues is by expanding GDP. You expand GDP by making is easier for business to prosper, so they can hire more people, who spend money on stuff, which makes other business grow, and so on and so forth.
This is easy, simple, math and economics, but it will never happen with the current anti-business administration.
Krugman is a very angry little man. On top of it I bet he uses every deduction known to the tax codes to keep the government out of his pocket.
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
Don’t forget JFK’s tax cuts and why he did it.
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.