Krugman on taxes

[Libertarian666]

Pretty much what the founders intended.

I think the bigger issue than quibbling about specific tax rates rates is the philosophy that people's incomes are just there for government to help themselves to the "optimal" amount. "All we should care about is how much revenue we raise." hmm.

Exactly. What Krugman seems to be saying is that anyone who he defines as "rich" or that Moda would describe as "wealthy" is sufficiently morally repugnant that "the rest of us" (whoever that is) should have no qualms about relieving them of as much of their money as possible. The only question is how you can maximize the take using the current tax system. The question of why the government is more entitled to spend it (and on what) than the person earning it is of course not addressed.

This is divisive and frankly ugly stuff in my opinion. I agree with progressive taxation in the name of fairness, because flat taxes like FICA genuinely are harder on people in the lower brackets as more of their income goes toward daily necessities. I also agree that there are some things that we need government to do, and that must be paid for. That's a very innocent point of view compared to the philosophy espoused in this article.

Yes, it is innocent compared to the extreme "progressive" position.
But it still means some people using force to get money from people to spend on "government necessities".
The only truly innocent position is that there actually is NOTHING that we "need government to do", so therefore government is an unnecessary evil.
This was also HB's position, if that matters.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[moda0306]

I don't think an inheritor of billions is "morally repugnant," but I do believe they should pay a pretty fat tax bill if we're going to have a government protecting their wealth among other things.

yes if government is going to protect their wealth by taking it, they should take as much as they possibly can????

I'm assuming you meant "yet?" If so, I'm not making a statement on how much the government should take, necessarily. At the very least enough to pay for the vast majority of the military, IMO. Keep in mind I'd suggest cutting the size of our military by 2/3, but that's a separate discussion for now.

[moda0306]

I don't think an inheritor of billions is "morally repugnant," but I do believe they should pay a pretty fat tax bill if we're going to have a government protecting their wealth among other things.

yes if government is going to protect their wealth by taking it, they should take as much as they possibly can????

Exactly! Now you understand the mind of the "progressive" (communist).

Easy on the melodrama tech... you've been defending detaining (and killing if they resist) people from south of the border because they might become an indirect threat to your wealth by accepting welfare benefits as they exercise their natural right to travel and work where they choose.

All government actions look terrible when you analyze them from an anarchist perspective. High taxes on the wealthy are way down the list compared to many others that conservatives and even many self-described "libertarians" defend every day.

[moda0306]

Exactly. What Krugman seems to be saying is that anyone who he defines as "rich" or that Moda would describe as "wealthy" is sufficiently morally repugnant that "the rest of us" (whoever that is) should have no qualms about relieving them of as much of their money as possible. The only question is how you can maximize the take using the current tax system. The question of why the government is more entitled to spend it (and on what) than the person earning it is of course not addressed.

This is divisive and frankly ugly stuff in my opinion. I agree with progressive taxation in the name of fairness, because flat taxes like FICA genuinely are harder on people in the lower brackets as more of their income goes toward daily necessities. I also agree that there are some things that we need government to do, and that must be paid for. That's a very innocent point of view compared to the philosophy espoused in this article.

Great post covering many of my thoughts. I also agree with progressive taxation for fairness, but it’s feels neither prudent nor moral to take 50% of what one earns, even on the marginal dollar. Why does punishing success seem like such a great idea in the first place?

Aside from the financial motives, what is the moral justification for stripping 50% or more of say a doctor's income, considering the personal and financial sacrifice he/she made (college, med school, residency, etc.) just for the chance of becoming a licensed doctor? Does a doctor or other high net worth household get additional police protection? Does a doctor get special military protection? Is the doctor consuming more government resources than say, a plumber? I'd answer a solid no on most of these.

Lastly, I think we need to start realizing that there is no government "debt crisis", only a govenments spending crisis. As for the economic implications of budget deficits and national debt, governments can only spend insofar as they borrow or tax from the private sector. Period. As such, and in a very real sense, all government spending is deficit spending. The deficits and national debt are simply a distraction, political props if you will.

I can't speak for others, but I'm of the firm belief that wage income should be taxed at the same-or-lower than income from capital, AND that past-tuition should be tax-deductible against wage income as "basis," so in my preferred universe, doctors would pay less in tax, and dividend/interest recipients would pay more.

That said, one could say that doctors have "cartelized" their incomes via the AMA and other organizations and that their income is artificially high, but that's just for the sake of argument. I'm not going to die on that hill.

I'd say that the distinction between a deficit and a tax is pretty significant. One involves a mostly arms-length transaction with the private sector resulting in an amount owed back in the future. The other involves direct confiscation. That said the fiscal/inflation hawks of the last decade (or longer) have proven themselves utterly incapable of understanding reality and thus predicting future outcomes, so I understand your position that the debt is a bit of a contrivance (as it's a private-sector asset, and to extinguish one you must extinguish the other). But I'm not going to hijack this into a Monetary Realism/MMT vs Austrian thread like years-past.

[moda0306]

accepting welfare benefits as they exercise their natural right to travel and work where they choose.

I'm sorry, when did it become a 'natural right' to travel and work in a country you are not a citizen without the explicit permission of said country? Can you list the countries where this is even legal, let alone a 'natural right'?

And if they are here to work, why would they need to accept welfare benefits?

Anarchists generally believe that states are illegitimate institutions. They don't have the authority to limit travel across artificial borders than they do to tax people at 39.6% (or 70%).

That said, some anarchists are willing to make exceptions to their principled stands due to the pragmatic nature of dealing with the world as it is as opposed to some sort of utopia. In-fact I'd argue the vast majority do.

They don't need to accept welfare benefits so much as tech is worried that they might, and therefore could be an indirect threat to his own economic freedom by indirectly "forcing" him to pay taxes to benefit their economic situation. I hope I'm not misstating his position... I'm pretty sure I'm not.

That said, if you believe states ARE legitimate institutions in some or most or all cases, you'd come to different conclusions than someone who doesn't. For instance, you might take the position that states have full authority to detain anyone who crosses a border to optimize economic or social health for the vast majority of people in that governed area, or to institute a 70% tax rates to optimize revenue collection for the benefit of the vast majority of those same people.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think the bigger issue than quibbling about specific tax rates rates is the philosophy that people's incomes are just there for government to help themselves to the "optimal" amount. "All we should care about is how much revenue we raise." hmm.

Exactly. What Krugman seems to be saying is that anyone who he defines as "rich" or that Moda would describe as "wealthy" is sufficiently morally repugnant that "the rest of us" (whoever that is) should have no qualms about relieving them of as much of their money as possible. The only question is how you can maximize the take using the current tax system. The question of why the government is more entitled to spend it (and on what) than the person earning it is of course not addressed.

This is divisive and frankly ugly stuff in my opinion. I agree with progressive taxation in the name of fairness, because flat taxes like FICA genuinely are harder on people in the lower brackets as more of their income goes toward daily necessities. I also agree that there are some things that we need government to do, and that must be paid for. That's a very innocent point of view compared to the philosophy espoused in this article.

Great post covering many of my thoughts. I also agree with progressive taxation for fairness, but it’s feels neither prudent nor moral to take 50% of what one earns, even on the marginal dollar. Why does punishing success seem like such a great idea in the first place?

Aside from the financial motives, what is the moral justification for stripping 50% or more of say a doctor's income, considering the personal and financial sacrifice he/she made (college, med school, residency, etc.) just for the chance of becoming a licensed doctor? Does a doctor or other high net worth household get additional police protection? Does a doctor get special military protection? Is the doctor consuming more government resources than say, a plumber? I'd answer a solid no on most of these.

Yes. I think when you're blithely remarking on how much you can squeeze out of people (high paid professionals, in this case), as if they were Boxer the Horse, you are a shitnipple. He's just preaching to his choir. He's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him, and is definitely part of the faction that's hardening independant types like myself against supporting any Democrat or their platforms. In fact, Tyler Cowen called it the Trump Re-election Campaign, which sounds about right.

I can't speak for others, but I'm of the firm belief that wage income should be taxed at the same-or-lower than income from capital, AND that past-tuition should be tax-deductible against wage income as "basis," so in my preferred universe, doctors would pay less in tax, and dividend/interest recipients would pay more.

Fuck that. Bernie's wealth/investment-tax scheme was utterly revolting to me, and really impressed on me the need to keep up with politics. I like to think I convinced at least a few people not to vote for Bernie. It's already hard enough for most people to amass any kind of wealth, kicking them while they're trying to claw their way up is just egregious.

That said, one could say that doctors have "cartelized" their incomes via the AMA and other organizations and that their income is artificially high, but that's just for the sake of argument. I'm not going to die on that hill.

I could agree with you on that. Same with any workforce entrenched behind regulatory burdens of entry or unionized. Are you bringing it up to justify taxing them more on it?

[moda0306]

That said, one could say that doctors have "cartelized" their incomes via the AMA and other organizations and that their income is artificially high, but that's just for the sake of argument. I'm not going to die on that hill.

You will be happy to know that future generations will not have to deal with the cartel as it currently exists. Diversity is now more important than competency.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/what-doe ... do-science

Well first I wouldn't ever take Prager U as a difinitive source on... anything.

But even so, I don't know how happy I'd be. I'm only partially confident in that "cartelization" premise. I'm still trying to learn the effects of licensure and the like have on otherwise "free markets."

[Kriegsspiel]

accepting welfare benefits as they exercise their natural right to travel and work where they choose.

I'm sorry, when did it become a 'natural right' to travel and work in a country you are not a citizen without the explicit permission of said country? Can you list the countries where this is even legal, let alone a 'natural right'?

Countries have the right to decide who they let into their country, and who they give welfare to. The idea that any individual in the world has a right to go anywhere they want without regard for other people is nonsense, ditto for expecting to be given free shit.

[moda0306]

I can't speak for others, but I'm of the firm belief that wage income should be taxed at the same-or-lower than income from capital, AND that past-tuition should be tax-deductible against wage income as "basis," so in my preferred universe, doctors would pay less in tax, and dividend/interest recipients would pay more.

Fuck that. Bernie's wealth/investment-tax scheme was utterly revolting to me, and really impressed on me the need to keep up with politics. I like to think I convinced at least a few people not to vote for Bernie. It's already hard enough for most people to amass any kind of wealth, kicking them while they're trying to claw their way up is just egregious.

I think you might be misinterpreting what I said... or what Bernie's position is... or some combination of the two.

I'm talking about LOWERING taxes on people who are doctors. And other professionals that pay a ton in tuition to generate a high-income career. And wage-earners generally. This would give higher-income wage earners tens of thousands of dollars in tax reduction due to being able to deduct past-tuition as basis.

Yes, I did also mention higher taxes on capital. Like the 20% max Capital Gains bracket while wage income and ordinary income are taxed at 37%. Similarly, the new "Qualified Business Income Deduction" in Trump's tax law that gives business owners a 20% reduced effective tax rate... it's garbage tax law and should go.

If this is what you're talking about...

https://www.fool.com/retirement/general ... would.aspx

Then it's different than what I'm proposing.

However, if this proposal (or his wealth tax on the top .1% I heard floated) has you yelling "F That" and wanting to vote for Trump, then I'm wondering how much of an "independent" you really were.

[moda0306]

accepting welfare benefits as they exercise their natural right to travel and work where they choose.

I'm sorry, when did it become a 'natural right' to travel and work in a country you are not a citizen without the explicit permission of said country? Can you list the countries where this is even legal, let alone a 'natural right'?

Countries have the right to decide who they let into their country, and who they give welfare to. The idea that any individual in the world has a right to go anywhere they want without regard for other people is nonsense, ditto for expecting to be given free shit.

"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion. Or maybe "countries" are illegitimate institutions that have no rights. And maybe only people have rights. Such as the right to travel where you choose without regard to what agents of the state have to say about it. And maybe anyone who takes a hard-line stance on immigration (rather than those talking about taking from the richest in society) is the real sh!tnipple.

And maybe... just maybe... "countries" have the right to tax whoever they want at rates they want, because it's a law passed like any other.

I don't know. Seems like you have some double standards here.

[Kriegsspiel]

Wow, this guy really hates "the rich". I wonder how he defines that group? I expect he is very likely to be among them. So many people have nodded in agreement with such statements, until they realize that the term applies to them even though they don't own a yacht or a Bentley, and still feel like they're struggling to make ends meet.

The sad truth is that there really is no longer a middle class. You're either in the Medicaid/poverty class, or you're "rich" by someone's definition.

My impression is that a lot of the elite/intellectuals in leftist movements get the axe afterwards. Robespierre, Nin, Trotsky, etc. Like Orwell said, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people that don't even know that fire is hot."

[moda0306]

Wow, this guy really hates "the rich". I wonder how he defines that group? I expect he is very likely to be among them. So many people have nodded in agreement with such statements, until they realize that the term applies to them even though they don't own a yacht or a Bentley, and still feel like they're struggling to make ends meet.

The sad truth is that there really is no longer a middle class. You're either in the Medicaid/poverty class, or you're "rich" by someone's definition.

My impression is that a lot of the elite/intellectuals in leftist movements get the axe afterwards. Robespierre, Nin, Trotsky, etc. Like Orwell said, "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people that don't even know that fire is hot."

Lefties sure have had a nasty habit of going too crazy in the past!

But if you think Krugman or even Bernie's proposals are the likes of Robespierre, etc, you're fooling yourself. They're proposing standard social democratic rates the likes of Western Europe.

[Kriegsspiel]

"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion.

Yes.

btw

sh!tnipple.

And maybe... just maybe... "countries" have the right to tax whoever they want at rates they want, because it's a law passed like any other.

They can try, but if, say, Uganda tries taxing me because they want to, and they even pass a law that says "Kriegsspiel owes us money," I'm just going to ignore them. And I think it's more likely than not that my country, America, would have my back if some other country tried to dick me around like that...

I don't know. Seems like you have some double standards here.

Undoubtedly. I'm not a philosopher or anything, just shooting from the hip.

[Kriegsspiel]

But if you think Krugman or even Bernie's proposals are the likes of Robespierre, etc, you're fooling yourself.

Those were just examples of people who were turned on by those who they thought were their bros.

They're proposing standard social democratic rates the likes of Western Europe.

Well, I don't want Western European taxes. So I'm going to fight them.

[moda0306]

"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion.

Yes.

btw

sh!tnipple.

And maybe... just maybe... "countries" have the right to tax whoever they want at rates they want, because it's a law passed like any other.

They can try, but if, say, Uganda tries taxing me because they want to, and they even pass a law that says "Kriegsspiel owes us money," I'm just going to ignore them. And I think it's more likely than not that my country, America, would have my back if some other country tried to dick me around like that...

I don't know. Seems like you have some double standards here.

Undoubtedly. I'm not a philosopher or anything, just shooting from the hip.

Yeah political philosophy is a messy web.

To your tax example, what if it's the US government that wants to tax you at 70%... and they pass a law doing so? Is that not a legitimate law? Don't countries also have a right to set tax rates to what they deem to be optimal? Or do their rights end at immigration?

Don't feel like you have to have a perfect answer. I don't. I just know when to pick up that inconsistent priorities seem to be at play.

[moda0306]

You will be happy to know that future generations will not have to deal with the cartel as it currently exists. Diversity is now more important than competency.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/what-doe ... do-science

Well first I wouldn't ever take Prager U as a difinitive source on... anything.

But even so, I don't know how happy I'd be. I'm only partially confident in that "cartelization" premise. I'm still trying to learn the effects of licensure and the like have on otherwise "free markets."

You crack me up. If I post anything without a link to back up my statement, you give me shit. Then whenever I do provide a link, you give me shit because you personally don't care for the source.

That's funny, I was thinkingthe following:

"Either you post without any sort of link to your 'facts,' or when you do post a link, it's to garbage sources like Breitbart and Prager U."

Prager U is a link like Trump University is a doorway to real estate moguldom.

[moda0306]

Countries have the right to decide who they let into their country, and who they give welfare to. The idea that any individual in the world has a right to go anywhere they want without regard for other people is nonsense, ditto for expecting to be given free shit.

"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion. Or maybe "countries" are illegitimate institutions that have no rights. And maybe only people have rights. Such as the right to travel where you choose without regard to what agents of the state have to say about it. And maybe anyone who takes a hard-line stance on immigration (rather than those talking about taking from the richest in society) is the real sh!tnipple.

It's my opinion, too. As it is the majority of people's opinions everywhere. But regardless, even if it's your right to go into another country to seek work, it is not your right to then ask for hand outs.

It's of the majority of people's opinions everywhere that the super-wealthy should be taxed at much higher rates. I suppose that doesn't tickle your fancy as lending support to Krugman's/Bernie's opinions on tax rates?

[Kriegsspiel]

To your tax example, what if it's the US government that wants to tax you at 70%... and they pass a law doing so? Is that not a legitimate law?

Oh, I see. You mean within the context of AOC and Krugman, where the 70% bracket is at $10 million? I don't make that much, so it wouldn't impact me. It would be legitimate in that it's on the books and enforceable, sure.

Don't countries also have a right to set tax rates to what they deem to be optimal? Or do their rights end at immigration?

I don't know about your question's framing. Optimal would mean different things to different people. A medieval baron might consider optimal to be the most you can squeeze out of your peasants without them starving to death, or being to weak to function. Singapore would have a different mindset. In a practical sense, it's inescapable that they can do whatever they want as long as they are strong enough to enforce it, moral or not.

So if the people are fine with high taxes (they feel like they're getting their moneys worth, say), good for them. If they don't want to let a bunch of people who are wildly different from them and don't respect their culture, and might even hate them, come in and live in their neighborhoods, I can respect that.

I concede that it's murky business.

[moda0306]

To your tax example, what if it's the US government that wants to tax you at 70%... and they pass a law doing so? Is that not a legitimate law?

Oh, I see. You mean within the context of AOC and Krugman, where the 70% bracket is at $10 million? I don't make that much, so it wouldn't impact me. It would be legitimate in that it's on the books and enforceable, sure.

Don't countries also have a right to set tax rates to what they deem to be optimal? Or do their rights end at immigration?

I don't know about your question's framing. Optimal would mean different things to different people. A medieval baron might consider optimal to be the most you can squeeze out of your peasants without them starving to death, or being to weak to function. Singapore would have a different mindset. In a practical sense, it's inescapable that they can do whatever they want as long as they are strong enough to enforce it, moral or not.

So if the people are fine with high taxes (they feel like they're getting their moneys worth, say), good for them. If they don't want to let a bunch of people who are wildly different from them and don't respect their culture, and might even hate them, come in and live in their neighborhoods, I can respect that.

I concede that it's murky business.

It's all murky business which makes debates like this equally interesting (if you embrace the murkiness) and frustrating.

If you're generally a believer of private property, and the boundaries upon which it stops, I'm curious, while "understanding" someone's will to not want someone that doesn't like them live in their neighborhood, what on earth gives them the right to dictate that? Their property ends at their driveway. Immigration aside, there are probably tens of millions of people IN this country that I would rather not have in my neighborhood for a host of reasons. I don't know if I have any sort of right to dictate that, though.

Any attempt by me to "not let" certain people rent or buy a house in my neighborhood sounds awful dictatorial & coercive.

[Kriegsspiel]

If you're generally a believer of private property, and the boundaries upon which it stops, I'm curious, while "understanding" someone's will to not want someone that doesn't like them live in their neighborhood, what on earth gives them the right to dictate that?

Their country, its laws, and the ability to enforce them. As a hypothetical, say a homogeneous country like Denmark wants to limit immigration. Most of their citizens like their country the way it is and don't want it to change, they consider it a birthright their ancestors left to them, and their politicians respect that and pass laws to make it harder to immigrate there. The politicians can also choose to betray their citizens and encourage mass immigration. Anyways, that's what I'm saying when I say a country has the right to decide who it lets in. It's not for an American to decide that Iraqis have the right to live in Denmark.

Their property ends at their driveway. Immigration aside, there are probably tens of millions of people IN this country that I would rather not have in my neighborhood for a host of reasons. I don't know if I have any sort of right to dictate that, though.

Any attempt by me to "not let" certain people rent or buy a house in my neighborhood sounds awful dictatorial & coercive.

To clarify, I was using "neighborhoods" to mean country.

But to go with you on this, I don't think there is a way to not-allow people to move to whatever neighborhood they want, if they can afford it. I think what most people do in the real world is research the characteristics of a neighborhood and see if it's a place they want to live, and if it lacks people they don't want to live around. Obviously you're using dictatorial and coercive in the negative sense, but it's a who/whom scenario, to paraphrase my boy Vladimir. If I could use dictatorial powers to keep people who let their houses become decrepit shitholes out of my neighborhood, it would make my life and my neighbor's lives better; that's just common sense. Since I can't, I just deal with it.

[Libertarian666]

Exactly. What Krugman seems to be saying is that anyone who he defines as "rich" or that Moda would describe as "wealthy" is sufficiently morally repugnant that "the rest of us" (whoever that is) should have no qualms about relieving them of as much of their money as possible. The only question is how you can maximize the take using the current tax system. The question of why the government is more entitled to spend it (and on what) than the person earning it is of course not addressed.

This is divisive and frankly ugly stuff in my opinion. I agree with progressive taxation in the name of fairness, because flat taxes like FICA genuinely are harder on people in the lower brackets as more of their income goes toward daily necessities. I also agree that there are some things that we need government to do, and that must be paid for. That's a very innocent point of view compared to the philosophy espoused in this article.

Great post covering many of my thoughts. I also agree with progressive taxation for fairness, but it’s feels neither prudent nor moral to take 50% of what one earns, even on the marginal dollar. Why does punishing success seem like such a great idea in the first place?

Aside from the financial motives, what is the moral justification for stripping 50% or more of say a doctor's income, considering the personal and financial sacrifice he/she made (college, med school, residency, etc.) just for the chance of becoming a licensed doctor? Does a doctor or other high net worth household get additional police protection? Does a doctor get special military protection? Is the doctor consuming more government resources than say, a plumber? I'd answer a solid no on most of these.

Lastly, I think we need to start realizing that there is no government "debt crisis", only a govenments spending crisis. As for the economic implications of budget deficits and national debt, governments can only spend insofar as they borrow or tax from the private sector. Period. As such, and in a very real sense, all government spending is deficit spending. The deficits and national debt are simply a distraction, political props if you will.

Do you somehow lump the Federal Reserve into the "private sector"?

Because that is whom the government borrows from if they can't sell their bonds to people who can't print money.

[moda0306]

It's my opinion, too. As it is the majority of people's opinions everywhere. But regardless, even if it's your right to go into another country to seek work, it is not your right to then ask for handouts.

It's of the majority of people's opinions everywhere that the super-wealthy should be taxed at much higher rates. I suppose that doesn't tickle your fancy as lending support to Krugman's/Bernie's opinions on tax rates?

Nice strawman argument. What does taxing the super wealthy have to do with giving handouts to illegals?

There was no straw-man there... I said "I suppose," which you could have either confirmed or refuted.

But I did bold the wrong portion... my mistake.

I meant to bold the portion that said "it is the majority of people's opinions everywhere."

My point was that you seemed to be using "popular support" as some sort of evidence that borders are not just legitimate but a no-brainer, while rejecting "popular support" of high taxes on the super wealthy are morally acceptable.

[moda0306]

You crack me up. If I post anything without a link to back up my statement, you give me shit. Then whenever I do provide a link, you give me shit because you personally don't care for the source.

That's funny, I was thinkingthe following:

"Either you post without any sort of link to your 'facts,' or when you do post a link, it's to garbage sources like Breitbart and Prager U."

Prager U is a link like Trump University is a doorway to real estate moguldom.

In your opinion. I don't care for your sources, either. Who died and left Glenn Greenwald the world's greatest authority on anything?

Noam Chomsky ain't dead yet.



On a more serious note, yeah I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. One of us prefers the guy who helped Snowden release info about our bulk data collection programs and is a principled civil libertarian constantly opposing establishment power in both parties. The other holds itself out as a "University" but makes cartoons that my most nakedly partisan and ill-informed conservative friends post to Facebook as evidence for their political positions.

[Libertarian666]

It's my opinion, too. As it is the majority of people's opinions everywhere. But regardless, even if it's your right to go into another country to seek work, it is not your right to then ask for handouts.

It's of the majority of people's opinions everywhere that the super-wealthy should be taxed at much higher rates. I suppose that doesn't tickle your fancy as lending support to Krugman's/Bernie's opinions on tax rates?

Nice strawman argument. What does taxing the super wealthy have to do with giving handouts to illegals?

Oh, that's obvious.

Anyone who is against either of those is obviously a Nazi!

(Note: this is sarcasm.)