Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paul Krugman: The Economics of Soaking the Rich

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul Krugman: The Economics of Soaking the Rich

    What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot.

    The controversy of the moment involves Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (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 ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

    To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73 percent. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80 percent.

    Where do these numbers come from? Underlying the Diamond-Saez analysis are two propositions: Diminishing marginal utility and competitive markets.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/o...pinion&pgt ype=Homepage

    I agree. I don't think we should have a tax rate as high as 90% like in the 1950s and 1960s, though. That's because the U.S. economy has matured, its productivity has peaked, and it cannot have high growth rates like in the 1950s and 60s anymore. Too high a tax rate may reduce the growth rate even further. However, I think a 60-70% rate is reasonable and will help us to accomplish quite a few things, such as establishing a single-payer universal/Medicare for all healthcare system, as well as building the border wall.

  • #2
    First off, Ocasio Cortez is an incompetent complete fucking idiot. Frankly, anyone who thinks otherwise after seeing this dumb little girl talk for five minutes needs to be lobotomized.

    Second, only people who have never made a decent good income, or the very wealthy who pay barely anything in taxes because they can afford to take advantage of loopholes and unlimited number of write-offs think this is a good idea.

    This idiotic proposal will mainly affect the folks making between $150-$300k per household (doctors, engineers, IT, etc) — good income, but not high enough to take advantage of tax write-off schemes. In other words, people that actually had to work their ass off to get to that point in their life.

    Finally, it’s more effective to generate heat by burning dollar bills than giving it to the government to ineffectively spend on stupid shit. People that think otherwise have never had the privilege to compare work in the private sector and the clusterfuck that is the government.

    Originally posted by MRAPer
    such as establishing a single-payer universal/Medicare for all healthcare system
    No it wouldn’t.

    Comment


    • #3
      Occasional Cortex has homeopathic knowledge of economics. She knows little, but thinks she knows all - and appeals to her fellow homeopaths.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
        First off, Ocasio Cortez is an incompetent complete fucking idiot. Frankly, anyone who thinks otherwise after seeing this dumb little girl talk for five minutes needs to be lobotomized.

        Second, only people who have never made a decent good income, or the very wealthy who pay barely anything in taxes because they can afford to take advantage of loopholes and unlimited number of write-offs think this is a good idea.

        This idiotic proposal will mainly affect the folks making between $150-$300k per household (doctors, engineers, IT, etc) — good income, but not high enough to take advantage of tax write-off schemes. In other words, people that actually had to work their ass off to get to that point in their life.

        Finally, it’s more effective to generate heat by burning dollar bills than giving it to the government to ineffectively spend on stupid shit. People that think otherwise have never had the privilege to compare work in the private sector and the clusterfuck that is the government.


        No it wouldn’t.
        Regarding the first point, AOC probably had studied the subject a little bit before she came up with the 70-80% number.

        Second, I need to clarify that the tax rate should only apply to those who have incomes of several millions. The tax rates should look like these (for demonstration only, the exact numbers have to be determined carefully):

        income - tax rate
        1 million - 30%
        1-2 million - 40%
        3-4 million - 50%
        4-5 million - 60%
        5-6 million - 70%

        Finally, pretty much all developed countries have government-sponsored healthcare except the US, and almost all of them has more cost-effective healthcare systems than what the U.S. has.

        Comment


        • #5
          The top 1% of US income earners already pay 45% of all US income tax. How likely do you think they are to comply with such silly rates vs. relocating their money where it can't be touched?

          Jonathan is right, as always this type of thing will mostly fall upon the upper middle class who make enough money that they can be hit, but not enough to take advantage of the systems that the super rich can.

          I sincerely doubt that Occasional Cortex is doing anything other than mindlessly parroting what other people have told her.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
            The top 1% of US income earners already pay 45% of all US income tax. How likely do you think they are to comply with such silly rates vs. relocating their money where it can't be touched?

            Jonathan is right, as always this type of thing will mostly fall upon the upper middle class who make enough money that they can be hit, but not enough to take advantage of the systems that the super rich can.

            I sincerely doubt that Occasional Cortex is doing anything other than mindlessly parroting what other people have told her.
            As I said, the exact numbers need more tweak, so the burden will mainly fall on multimillionaires.

            Comment


            • #7
              Why it doesn't work.
              Watch Tony Robbins put the 2012 US budget into perspective!

              Comment


              • #8
                It's a lovely theory. In practice it will raise nearly nothing. Here is an example. Back in the 1990's Delaware did a big boost in the $1 million+ tax bracket and expected to raise an extra $700 million in tax. They got $10 million.

                Here's a tweak I suggest instead. Governments should spend less, then they'd need less. Easy stuff.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                  It's a lovely theory. In practice it will raise nearly nothing. Here is an example. Back in the 1990's Delaware did a big boost in the $1 million+ tax bracket and expected to raise an extra $700 million in tax. They got $10 million.

                  Here's a tweak I suggest instead. Governments should spend less, then they'd need less. Easy stuff.
                  It may work. There is currently global trend amongst developed nations to cut on tax escapes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here's an idea drastically cut down on defense, close all bases outside the US put akll that money in infrastructure development an health care and leave the world to its on devices. Should war erupt, wait till they are in France, looking at you german *shakes head* then raise up an army and kick their ass again. Its a cycle that worked and was a goo gig for the US and Germany

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Junglejim View Post
                      Here's an idea drastically cut down on defense, close all bases outside the US put akll that money in infrastructure development an health care and leave the world to its on devices. Should war erupt, wait till they are in France, looking at you german *shakes head* then raise up an army and kick their ass again. Its a cycle that worked and was a goo gig for the US and Germany
                      Not this time dude
                      The Bundeswher is a joke and if things go south we still have magic mushrooms to turn the krauts into radioactive coleslaw
                      In fact during CW, that was exactly what we intended to do. That would have conveyed a message to the red and achieved a good deed for humanity to get rid of those pesky teutons
                      (all sentences above are loaded with heavy irony, just in case it was missed ....)
                      Last edited by Mordoror; 07-01-2019, 04:43 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What Mordoror said. Without the irony.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MRAPer View Post

                          https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/o...pinion&pgt ype=Homepage

                          I agree. I don't think we should have a tax rate as high as 90% like in the 1950s and 1960s, though. That's because the U.S. economy has matured, its productivity has peaked, and it cannot have high growth rates like in the 1950s and 60s anymore. Too high a tax rate may reduce the growth rate even further. However, I think a 60-70% rate is reasonable and will help us to accomplish quite a few things, such as establishing a single-payer universal/Medicare for all healthcare system, as well as building the border wall.
                          How much do you think is a reasonable tax rate for yourself?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                            This idiotic proposal will mainly affect the folks making between $150-$300k per household (doctors, engineers, IT, etc) — good income, but not high enough to take advantage of tax write-off schemes. In other words, people that actually had to work their ass off to get to that point in their life.
                            .
                            Or in today's college system, those already struggling to pay off massive loans to pay for the education needed to get that specialist job
                            I think a progressive tax system is cool but it can't be about punishing any particular class.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Those figures are nothing short of a communist takeover. Sure they can do with tweaking many like Buffet agree. But those figures are Venezuelan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X