No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by TinyMcOtter on Jan 8, 2019 11:02:13 PM
80% Tax on the wealthy? It’s common sense economics, say top economists

For example, Krugman: “...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.

“As I said, Diamond and Saez put the optimal rate at 73 percent, Romer at over 80 percent — which is consistent with what AOC said.”

What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexand
ria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
TinyMcOtter - 08 Jan 2019 23:03:50 (#1 of 328)

He continues.

“Republicans almost universally advocate low taxes on the wealthy, based on the claim that tax cuts at the top will have huge beneficial effects on the economy. This claim rests on research by … well, nobody. There isn’t any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.”

GyratingTrampoline - 08 Jan 2019 23:26:06 (#2 of 328)

Would be nice if some of our lot found the balls/ovaries to advocate a 70 or 80% tax rate

AdrianNTierney - 08 Jan 2019 23:36:10 (#3 of 328)

"There isn’t any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.”

How appallingly false! There's no 'evidence' supporting confiscatory taxation levels of ANY kind, least of all income taxes. And quite a bit of historical evidence showing that all confiscatory taxation levels produce is immense corruption, flight of those deemed wealthy, and other kinds of evasion and falsity.

The article cited in the header discusses US Federal income rates of up to 91%. What Krugman 'cleverly' avoids discussing, however, is reality. Reality in which eating sufficient INCOME to generate that 91% confiscation level actually paid an average of some 16% in Federal income taxes.

Hw is that possible you might ask? Quite easy - ALL taxes paid (to other jurisdictions, ALL interest paid on loans, ALL mortgages (even for that 10th house), ALL business expenses, ALL of those were deductible expenses for purposes of income tax calculation.

IOW, the only people who ever paid that 91% income tax levy were lottery winners and sports super stars. Nearly none of which existed during the time that income tax level was levied.

So there's ZERO "evidence" of such income tax levels in current eras.

Intowntonight - 08 Jan 2019 23:36:22 (#4 of 328)

At what level of income (or wealth) should 70% or 80% kick in ?

Geribaldi - 08 Jan 2019 23:37:33 (#5 of 328)

“...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."

Well then, 100%. Krugman is a genius.

TRaney - 08 Jan 2019 23:40:01 (#6 of 328)

When the top rate was 90% the Stones made Exile... so I’m all for it.

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 03:09:32 (#7 of 328)

Good point. We can get rid of phil Collins at the same time.

Unfortunately, the whole ‘rich people will leave/stop working’ argument is largely a myth.

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 03:10:14 (#8 of 328)

Well then, 100%. Krugman is a genius.



He addreses that in the article but then, like Trump, you probably haven’t read it.

brooklyn - 09 Jan 2019 03:22:11 (#9 of 328)

<<What Krugman 'cleverly' avoids discussing, however, is reality. Reality in which eating sufficient INCOME to generate that 91% confiscation level actually paid an average of some 16% in Federal income taxes.>>

what ant again fails to note, as he did on another thread, is that the burden on the rich in those days, once all federal and state taxes were considered, was more like 45%.

not as much as it should have been. but perhaps we'll do better this time.

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 04:18:37 (#10 of 328)

And he so cleverly thought that he’d found a cunning flaw in stupidy stupid Krugman and all those other silly economic experts.

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 07:48:24 (#11 of 328)

So, the 70-80% tax wouldn't 'only' raise about $72 billion a year, or $720 over ten years. That's enough to:

"It could come close to funding the entirety of Sanders’s free college tuition plan ($800 billion), fund President Barack Obama's plan to get close to universal prekindergarten ($75 billion over a decade), forgive more than half the student debt in America ($1.4 trillion), cover Democratic leaders' plan for boosting teacher pay and school funding ($100 billion), or come close to funding a $1 trillion infrastructure plan."

On top of that, a wealth tax is probably more useful:

""...a 1 percent wealth tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of households above $10 million could raise about $200 billion a year, or $2 trillion over 10 years." Separately, "a 0.5 percent wealth tax on the top 1 percent could raise at most $3 trillion over 10 years."

HerrWalrus - 09 Jan 2019 07:50:59 (#12 of 328)

We've surely heard too much from top economists over the years. Isn't it time to hear from bottom economists?

TRaney - 09 Jan 2019 07:52:19 (#13 of 328)

A more fundamental analysis you mean?

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 07:54:34 (#14 of 328)

Isn't it time to hear from bottom economists?



Filth!

HerrWalrus - 09 Jan 2019 07:55:59 (#15 of 328)

And what about the middling economists? Does their voice not count?

TRaney - 09 Jan 2019 07:59:11 (#16 of 328)

They’re just navel-gazers

Ginmonkey - 09 Jan 2019 08:04:23 (#17 of 328)

Problem with economics is it is often more of an art than a science so you can always find another topp economist to disagree with your topp economist.

On a more serious note I often have a lot of time for Paul Krugman's views.

Moschops - 09 Jan 2019 08:08:32 (#18 of 328)

We should probably try something else, as it seems fairly clear the current methods aren't working

GyratingTrampoline - 09 Jan 2019 08:11:37 (#19 of 328)

The reason we shouldn't tax the rich is that even if we did, it wouldn't raise enough to pay for world class public services. For that, we'd need to raise taxes for normal people. And normal people don't want to pay more taxes. So we shouldn't bother taxing the rich more either. Because it is "avoiding the grown up conversation". And is cake and unicorns.

TinyMcOtter - 09 Jan 2019 08:21:33 (#20 of 328)

Also the politics of envy and PC gone mad.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Issues