Krugman on taxes

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

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 1:00 pm

moda0306 wrote:
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

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.
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.
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 1:01 pm

pugchief wrote:
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


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.

:)
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 1:12 pm

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:00 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:09 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:00 pm


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?
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 1:13 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:43 pm
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.
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 1:26 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:13 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:43 pm
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.
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 1:59 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:26 pm
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.
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4645
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by technovelist » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:33 pm

InsuranceGuy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:26 am
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.
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.
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 5:00 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:01 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:58 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:56 am


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.

:)
In your opinion. I don't care for your sources, either. Who died and left Glenn Greenwald the world's greatest authority on anything?
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 5:02 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:00 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:09 pm


"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 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?
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 5:10 pm

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:00 pm


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.
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 5:24 pm

It's still strawman, as your rebuttal did not address the issue of the handouts, but instead changed the subject to tax rates.
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 5:26 pm

pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:00 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:01 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:58 pm

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.
Last edited by moda0306 on Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply