Krugman on taxes

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm

tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.
. . .
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... dance.html
Pretty much what the founders intended.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:32 pm

If Krugman is ever right about anything, it will be the first time.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by boglerdude » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:56 pm

Freeway congestion pricing (bidding for spaces) would be a win-win tax on the rich. But it "looks unfair"

And the rich are taxed by paying more for health ins and tuition
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by WiseOne » 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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:01 am

WiseOne 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.
Is "rich" a lifestyle or a net worth? I lean towards the latter, because a "rich" lifestyle built on labor with inadequate stored wealth is fleeting. Anybody can generate a fleeting "rich" lifestyle if they're willing to go into debt or only engage in it temporarily.

If net worth describes "richness," then there are indeed many, many people that are not in the Medicaid/poverty class that are also not "rich."

To Krugman's comments, if he's right that (for example) perhaps a 70% tax rate will maximize revenue, this is a very different question than the morality of said tax. In-fact, if it's true, it would get us past all this Laffer-curve bullsh!t where conservatives pretend to care about our fiscal position by cutting taxes on high-income folks to supposedly "raise revenue."

But wealthy people have it fine. Even if we ignore all the planning one can do around retirement accounts and life insurance, or rental properties, and just assume a 100% taxable passive portfolio, a $5 Million Net Worth generating a 3% "taxable income load" will probably generate $150k of income and about a $25k annual federal income tax (probably less), and no FICA/Medicare tax.

I'm not going to lose sleep over that. Some shlub making $90k in wages probably pays that much in Fed & Payroll taxes.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:28 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:20 am
What Krugman (among other leftisits) still doesn't get is that confiscatory tax rates have the same effect as communism, well, because it basically is communism.
Ummm... no. They're nothing alike. I would much, much rather be an American in 1955 with the crazy tax brackets back then than a Russian citizen back then.


If I know that for every dollar above some threshold results in those dollars being taxed at 85% (federal + state + unlimited medicare + 3.8% Obamacare tax + who knows what else), what incentive do I have to be productive to that level?
I don't know... maybe the 15% of profits is worth the extra work. Maybe you have an expensive lifestyle you have to afford. Maybe you just decide not to work at that level. What matters to the analysis isn't what YOU would do, but what earners at that level as a group would do.

Based on my experience with tax and even high-income clients, usually folks don't really know what their marginal tax rate is (no matter how much I try to drill that in).
I will try to work the least to make the most, as will virtually everyone else.
That sort of describes (understandably) pretty much how everyone behaves. Or try to behave. This isn't exactly something it takes taxes to generate. People try to earn the most amount out of the least amount of work. Duh.
Except, of course, the true leftists who will work the least to get the most free shit.
"True leftists" huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_t ... g_by_state
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... t-america/

I see little evidence that "leftists" are the biggest takers. I'd say that low-income conservatives probably help even out the game a bit... or maybe there are just politically agnostic "takers" in red states and counties?
If you don't believe me, go ask anyone who grew up in the former Eastern Bloc before the Iron Curtain fell, and then emigrated to the US. Even their college aged kids don't buy into that philosophy.
Well I've already said I don't consider "high taxes = communism" to be anywhere near a reasonable statement, but let's analyze how much Polish folks hate what you consider "basically communism."

https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/gov ... ing-to-gdp

41% of Poland's GDP is government spending.

https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/per ... e-tax-rate

If you add Poland's income tax to their Social Security tax, it comes to almost 70%. That doesn't even factor in their 24% sales tax rate, which is a tax paid IRRESPECTIVE of income, as it's levied on gross receipts, not net income.

They don't seem to hate "basically communism" nearly as much as one would think considering the totalitarian commie boot on their neck for decades.

Lastly, to your point about Polish emigrants to the U.S., here's how they've voted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Am ... y_politics

While they're not bleeding-heart commies, they seemed to tilt left.

So your entire narrative seems pretty empty.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:31 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:58 pm
Moda,
Thanks for the skooling. You, of course, missed my point. Maybe super high tax rates aren't technically communism (perhaps socialism would have been a better choice of words), I was drawing an analogy that the effect was the same, i.e., redistribution of capital with the disincentivization of production. Pretty sure the 'group' would do the same as I.
Well we're talking about pretty different extremes here. I mean I guess this is getting into semantics, but it seemed like you were saying they were very, very similar. I don't find them similar at all, though you do raise a point that it could disincentive production.

Oddly though, it was Stalin's attempts to incentivize production (at the point of a gun) that are among the Soviet Unions greatest atrocities. Millions died due to his attempts to industrialize the economy and meet production quotas/timelines.

I actually sort of doubt their economy would have modernized that fast had the White Russians won. But I could be wrong. And to be clear I don't find that to be a "good thing" considering the number of lives it was achieved on the back of.
I'm not sure why you zeroed in on Poland, but even the link you provided says their income tax rate is 32%, so I'm not sure what your point is. But I had a college kid who is the child of pre-Iron Curtain Russian immigrants shadowing me yesterday, as he wants to go to dental school, and he told me first hand that his community does not believe in socialism.
Poland struck me as the quintessential example of an eastern-block country. I just picked it and got a little bored with finding sources. :)

And the "income tax" rate is 32%, but as you did, making sure that all taxes on income are applied is important, as what you walk away with is what drives incentives (or so we're told, right?). And that does get close to 70% when you take all the Social Security. Further, a 24% sales tax is obscenely high, and that's on top of all the other taxes. If they don't like socialism, and high taxes is "basically" socialism, then we have quite the mystery here...
Why don't you provide an example of a modern country where income tax rates are 70% or higher and how much the citizens love it. Perhaps Venezuela?
Interestingly, Venezuala's taxes don't appear to be that high, and their government spending isn't that high of a portion of GDP. Yes, they owned some industries (mostly around natural resources), but Venezuela doesn't appear to be that "socialist" considering the measures you're talking about... and it's certainly not in the more hippie version of socialism where "the workers own the means of production." But no state socialist models really seem to work like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

Finland's on the other hand appear to be around 51% NOT including Social Security, but closer to 80% if you include the SS tax total. Similarly to Poland, they also have a very, very high sales tax. Oddly, you'd want to re-figure the denominator for employer-paid Social Security taxes. So $80/120 = about 67%. Not quite 70%, but I we're sort of arguing peanuts at this point right?

https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/pe ... e-tax-rate

These are what we would consider obscenely high tax rates in countries that seem to be doing ok.
Sorry I'm not Kshartle.
Let's all be glad you're not. :)



So maybe Krugman and other lefties HAVE thought of the disincentive-to-produce argument and simply come to conclusions that this is why the "optimum rate" for tax-revenue is 70% instead of 75%, 80%, etc.

Once again, I'm not advocating for 70% tax rates necessarily, or even that it's the clear optimal rate for tax-revenue... just that we probably can rid ourselves of the "we can't raise taxes any more without reducing revenue" argument, because they're often made with weak evidence.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Xan » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm
tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.
. . .
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... dance.html
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:20 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm
tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.
. . .
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... dance.html
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.
Well, to be fair, he's not talking about all people. Just very, very high income folks.

That said, I think you raise an excellent moral point. However, it has to compete with all other considerations, such as this supposed "debt crisis" we may or may not be in, and the fact that our military (a massive driver of our deficit (past and present)) is mostly used to defend the economic interests of the capital class. I'd prefer something more akin to a wealth-based tax than an income-based one, but there's a pretty considerable amount of overlap between very high wealth and very high income.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by WiseOne » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:30 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm
tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.
. . .
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... dance.html
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:50 am

WiseOne wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:30 am
Xan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm


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.
I'm not saying that at all. I thought I made that clear that the moral argument is another one altogether and more complex and I don't have strong opinions on it. And even if I did I wouldn't put it as "morally repugnant." 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.

It's important to find that level more-so to clarify our arguments. If the optimal level for revenue is 70%, and some sniveling sociopath of a "public representative" tries to make the claim that lowering taxes from 35% to 30% will actually INCREASE revenue, then we know they're full of it and can roll the guillotine out in front of their office in DC.

I kid, but I hope you can see how this helps clarify the discussion then as a moral one, not one of cause/effect. I find dishonesty of supposed "public servants" to the benefit of folks they actually serve to be more "ugly" than high taxes on wealth, but that's a subjective value position.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am

Simonjester wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:50 am
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).
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:12 am

WiseOne wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:30 am
Xan wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:24 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:56 pm


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.
User avatar
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by InsuranceGuy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:26 am

[deleted]
Last edited by InsuranceGuy on Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:36 am

Simonjester wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:50 am
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:41 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am
Simonjester wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:50 am
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:53 am

InsuranceGuy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:26 am
WiseOne 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.
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.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

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

MangoMan 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: 4052
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.
WiseOne 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: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

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

MangoMan 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: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

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

MangoMan 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: 7680
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: 7680
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
MangoMan 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: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

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

WiseOne 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: 7680
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
WiseOne 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.
Post Reply