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

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: 4052
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: 7680
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
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 1:01 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:58 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:56 am
MangoMan 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: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by moda0306 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm

MangoMan 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: 4052
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: 7680
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: 4052
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.
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 4:33 pm

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.
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
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 5:10 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm
MangoMan 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
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 5:26 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:00 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:01 pm
MangoMan 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.
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 5:39 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm
MangoMan 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?
Oh, that's obvious.

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

(Note: this is sarcasm.)
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 5:39 pm

MangoMan wrote:
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.
How is it a strawman? Do you even know what a straw man is? Did you learn logic from Prager U or something?

A straw man is when you attribute to someone a premise or opinion or argument they do not hold or make that is easy to debunk for the purposes of "winning an argument." I didn't make your argument for you... hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't making your argument for you, but instead was trying to understand your position by stating it a certain way and checking for accuracy.

Further, this is a thread on tax rates first and foremost, and the topic of immigration got brought into it as a topic of comparison topic to these so-called principles in terms of how to use state force when enforcing the popular will. You seemed to be (tell me if I'm wrong) using popular opinion about borders as a defense for strict border patrol, but did NOT apply the same standard to high tax rates. Why is that?

At the risk of getting accused of getting accused (again) of straw-manning, I'm merely stating that you SEEMED to be stating something. If I'm straw-manning, please steel-man it up for me: Does something being popular lend evidence towards its moral legitimacy, even if it's not borders but instead high tax rates on very high incomes or the wealthy (the original topic of this thread)?

If the answer is yes, then why all the moralizing about tax rates earlier in this thread?

If the answer is no, why?

If the question is unfair, please clarify how?

I'm giving you all the outs here. If I'm straw-manning anywhere, or any other logical fallacy. Please specifically highlight it and correct it for me.
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 7:47 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:35 pm
In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15- ... cies-know/ (assuming you will accept my source :) )

Perhaps it could be better called a red herring fallacy. No matter, you still haven't commented on the handouts to illegals, which was my argument.
I still hadn't responded to your comment because it was a simple assertion you were making, not a question or a direct challenge to any assertion I made. It's ok to say you think something is someone's right, and I didn't find it particularly interesting or important to counter your point or ask for clarity. What was more interesting and important was to juxtapose your assertions against opinions we had just been discussing on taxes. Your seemingly driving principles of popularity vs economic freedom seemed to be fleeting depending on what the topic was. To me what principles people hold is far less interesting than when they are willing to drop them for a very different set of principles.

My comment was a red herring to the argument about welfare rights of immigrants. However it was very pertinent to the tax discussion, which was where we started this discussion in the first place. I made that clear. Or at least I thought I did.

As to whether illegal immigrants have rights to "ask for" handouts. Well of course they do. But I think you meant "receive handouts from government." I'd say it's a stretch for them to have a "right" to government handouts, if you mean rights in a natural/moral (rather than legal) sense. But in a natural/moral sense I question whether anyone has a "right" to government handouts. And someone's willingness to accept government handouts probably doesn't give me the "right" to restrict their travel.
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 9:49 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:12 pm


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.)
Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."

Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kbg » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:56 am

I love tax policy when it goes religious. All kinds of tax policies work. All tax policies shape incentives. If a country’s citizens are cool with it, it funds whatever citizens want funded and doesn’t cause large elements of commerce to go black or grey market then the tax is “ok.”

One of my favorite quips on US politics: If you want free stuff vote Democrat. If you don’t want to pay for free stuff vote Republican.
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 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:30 am

MangoMan wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pm


Oh, that's obvious.

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

(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."

Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
I believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.

The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
Hey remember when you mentioned a "straw man?" See bolded above.

And the hardcore-left has always had some squirrelly views in its membership. This isn't new. The quasi-militant wing of every leftist movement is likely to have some undesirables.
User avatar
jhogue
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:47 am

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by jhogue » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:52 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:56 am
I love tax policy when it goes religious. All kinds of tax policies work. All tax policies shape incentives. If a country’s citizens are cool with it, it funds whatever citizens want funded and doesn’t cause large elements of commerce to go black or grey market then the tax is “ok.”

One of my favorite quips on US politics: If you want free stuff vote Democrat. If you don’t want to pay for free stuff vote Republican.


The paradox of American politics: the American people want more stuff than they are willing to pay for.
“Groucho Marx wrote:
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:52 am

MangoMan wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:39 pm


Oh, that's obvious.

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

(Note: this is sarcasm.)
Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."

Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
I believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.

The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
I guess even LITERALLY marking something as SARCASM isn't good enough for some people.
Thanks for the clarification.
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 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:56 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:52 am
MangoMan wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:49 pm


Pretty odd sarcasm for someone who labelled folks who advocate high tax rates on the wealthy as "communists."

Or was that sarcasm towards capitalists? Cuz I know a lot more capitalists that call high taxes "communism" than liberals that call low taxes and low welfare "Nazism."
I believe he is mocking the AOC left that considers anyone that doesn't believe in their full agenda a racist/nazi.

The irony is that now the left is becoming increasingly anti-semitic. Look at what's been going on with the Women's March group.
I guess even LITERALLY marking something as SARCASM isn't good enough for some people.
Thanks for the clarification.
You didn't mark the accusation of proponents of high-tax rates as being communists as "sarcasm." From what I can tell, you should be ridiculing yourself.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by WiseOne » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:37 am

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:47 pm
My comment was a red herring to the argument about welfare rights of immigrants. However it was very pertinent to the tax discussion, which was where we started this discussion in the first place. I made that clear. Or at least I thought I did.

As to whether illegal immigrants have rights to "ask for" handouts. Well of course they do. But I think you meant "receive handouts from government." I'd say it's a stretch for them to have a "right" to government handouts, if you mean rights in a natural/moral (rather than legal) sense. But in a natural/moral sense I question whether anyone has a "right" to government handouts. And someone's willingness to accept government handouts probably doesn't give me the "right" to restrict their travel.
It is pertinent, indeed. Given the rate of illegal immigration and their sheer numbers here, the burden they impose on the rest of us is substantial. If you take the Heritage Foundation's estimate of $7,000 per immigrant per year net cost (counting federal, state, local, and private direct costs, net of taxes paid by the illegal immigrants) and multiply that by the 22M estimated illegal immigrant population, you get an annual burden of $154 billion. Which btw doesn't count their children born on US soil who get to claim citizenship, or the relatives brought in as a result, due to the "chain migration" policy. These means that well over 10%, possibly 20% of the current resident US population is either here illegally, or as a result of illegal immigration. It sounds shocking but it's entirely consistent with what I see every day.

The arguments about these immigrants having a natural "right to travel" are an example of a theoretical belief taken to ridiculous extremes. Moda, do you lock your front door? If so, you do realize that you're restricting others' "right to travel" into your house. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument could be used to support a ban on all locks that restrict people from entering any area, whether public or private. So what if people then start robbing you blind? They're doing that anyway, and you & half the country don't seem to mind.
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 15, 2019 2:31 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:37 am
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:47 pm
My comment was a red herring to the argument about welfare rights of immigrants. However it was very pertinent to the tax discussion, which was where we started this discussion in the first place. I made that clear. Or at least I thought I did.

As to whether illegal immigrants have rights to "ask for" handouts. Well of course they do. But I think you meant "receive handouts from government." I'd say it's a stretch for them to have a "right" to government handouts, if you mean rights in a natural/moral (rather than legal) sense. But in a natural/moral sense I question whether anyone has a "right" to government handouts. And someone's willingness to accept government handouts probably doesn't give me the "right" to restrict their travel.
It is pertinent, indeed. Given the rate of illegal immigration and their sheer numbers here, the burden they impose on the rest of us is substantial. If you take the Heritage Foundation's estimate of $7,000 per immigrant per year net cost (counting federal, state, local, and private direct costs, net of taxes paid by the illegal immigrants) and multiply that by the 22M estimated illegal immigrant population, you get an annual burden of $154 billion. Which btw doesn't count their children born on US soil who get to claim citizenship, or the relatives brought in as a result, due to the "chain migration" policy. These means that well over 10%, possibly 20% of the current resident US population is either here illegally, or as a result of illegal immigration. It sounds shocking but it's entirely consistent with what I see every day.

The arguments about these immigrants having a natural "right to travel" are an example of a theoretical belief taken to ridiculous extremes. Moda, do you lock your front door? If so, you do realize that you're restricting others' "right to travel" into your house. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument could be used to support a ban on all locks that restrict people from entering any area, whether public or private. So what if people then start robbing you blind? They're doing that anyway, and you & half the country don't seem to mind.
I do lock my front door. Mostly for the personal financial & personal safety risk benefit, as anyone breaking into an apartment doesn't have the best intentions. I don't think that same logic applies to the hundreds of millions of acres of the southwest United States as a whole. Maybe individual apartments, plots of land, etc. But not the whole damn thing.

Even if I was a "private property" extremist, "taken to its logical conclusion" my property stops at my doorway, and I have absolutely no right to dictate how people travel in the billions of acres of southwest North America if I take property rights to an extreme.

Where I might get a "right" to dictate that would be from the idea of some sort of "National Sovereignty" of the United States (that I'm a part-shareholder in of sorts), or some sort of right to "prevent someone from being a potential and indirect threat to my sovereignty via the spending & tax system." Both of which are quite flawed concepts.

I'm far more concerned of being robbed by police, polluters, neo-liberal capital using our military to defend its dominance over foreign labor, bankers, and maybe a handful of others than new-coming illegal immigrants. I see those threats as being larger. I do "mind," I suppose, but see much bigger issues, and if anyone's being "robbed blind," it's the marginalized populations of this earth, whose natural resources have been fleeced from them.

Here's a link to how your Heritage Foundation ::) study is flawed, btw:

https://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immi ... lly-flawed
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Krugman on taxes

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:28 pm

Post Reply