Krugman on taxes

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:52 am

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:30 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:41 am
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.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:53 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm
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.
sophie wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:30 am
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.
InsuranceGuy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:26 am
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.
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:53 am
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?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:56 am

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:33 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:53 am
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."
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:00 pm

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:30 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:41 am
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:07 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:53 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:53 am
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:09 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:00 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:30 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:41 am
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.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:17 pm

sophie wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:36 am
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."
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:21 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:17 pm
sophie wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:36 am
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.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:36 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:09 pm
"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion.
Yes.

btw
sh!tnipple.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
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.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:42 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:21 pm
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:43 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:36 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:09 pm
"Countries have the right." Yeah that's your opinion.
Yes.

btw
sh!tnipple.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
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.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by pugchief » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:58 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:56 am
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:33 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:53 am
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."
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. ::)
Post Reply