Krugman: Bring back 91% tax rate

[Bob111]

you can tax whatever..i remember russia tried that..i was there at that time..tax f** 90%..f** tax 100+%..and you will get NOTHING. there is will be barter,black market etc..study f** history,krugman..another pathetic academic f**

look, taxing fucks..get this trough your head, imbeciles in DC..i don't mind to pay a tax,but give a f** proof that you are capable and accountable for my money..i'm asking too much? stop pissin away my dollars. or create a clear,simple transparent system,where WE,the people will decide where our money should go. that would include your salaries and retirement benefits. you sign up some lousy,useless,retarded law or order? f** off!, fired,no pay,no pension.next!
we can do it now online, in real f** time. it could be way better and more porductive than watching f** american idol. cause you can be a next americal idol too!

 

[burn8]

Truth is nobody every paid 91% and nobody every will.

Ask any French business if they could survive actually paying the taxes required by their government. There are always 2 sets of books.

Problem is now everybody becomes a criminal to survive and governments love that - just like they love keeping illegal aliens around to do the dirty work.

-burn8

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from burn8:

Truth is nobody every paid 91% and nobody every will.

Ask any French business if they could survive actually paying the taxes required by their government. There are always 2 sets of books.

Problem is now everybody becomes a criminal to survive and governments love that - just like they love keeping illegal aliens around to do the dirty work.

-burn8 [/QUOTE

Truth is people did pay the 91% rate. Not many. But some did.

Higher taxes will not bring back jobs or security to the middle class
that existed in the 1950s. If you think it will, tell me how? And avoiding stimulus in a recession because you think Krugman is an asshole is nonsensical.

Krugman went too far with this article. Being a liberal should not equate with punishing the wealthy, which Krugman clearly wants to do. Liberalism is about having a responsive and flexible government that can deliver services and management on a scale that the private sector can't or does not want to do. Its not about co-opting the wealth of the nation for the designs of ideologues. It's about cold naked practicality and general social welfare, and that includes respecting the sphere of the wealthy and the attending to the occasional needs of the misfortunate.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from L-Kabong:



High tax rates in and of themselves will not address the level of wealth inequality present today in the USA. Rates are TOO LOW for under 100k. Capital gains rates are too low.

Based on what? Or is that simply your assertion?

Before we add a dime to anyone's tax burden, large spending cuts are in order. We have entire gov't agencies that serve no real purpose (e.g., Departments of Energy and Education). Spending on defense can also be slashed heavily.

Also, there's more to taxes than the Federal rate. Compared to the 1950s, taxes on practically everything else have skyrocketed: sales, property, gasoline, lots of other hidden taxes. Social Security taxes used to be 3% for employee and 3% for employer. Now it's over 15% if you're self-employed (12.4% for Social Security 2.9% for Medicare). We need more taxes about as much as we need more obesity. And what trader runs around calling for higher capital gains rates (this is a trading site, BTW)?

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from MKTrader:

Based on what? Or is that simply your assertion?

Before we add a dime to anyone's tax burden, large spending cuts are in order. We have entire gov't agencies that serve no real purpose (e.g., Departments of Energy and Education). Spending on defense can also be slashed heavily.

Also, there's more to taxes than the Federal rate. Compared to the 1950s, taxes on practically everything else have skyrocketed: sales, property, gasoline, lots of other hidden taxes. Social Security taxes used to be 3% for employee and 3% for employer. Now it's over 15% if you're self-employed (12.4% for Social Security 2.9% for Medicare). We need more taxes about as much as we need more obesity. And what trader runs around calling for higher capital gains rates (this is a trading site, BTW)?

Well, yes, that is my assertion of my opinion, but I do base it on certain facts. The Bush tax cuts gave significant cuts to middle and lower income earners with dependents. The tax cuts came not through rate reductions primarily but through deductions and credits for dependents.
A self employed individual earning a 100k with 3 children and a mortgage could be paying as little as 5% in Federal taxes, not including SS and Medicare. People earning 50k and less could be paying no Fed income taxes at all. Every wage earner should have some skin in the game. I don't care if you decided to have nine kids; that doesn't let you off the hook.

I have no beef with SS taxes. They will be returned to us at a later date when we hang up our stirrups. In theory at least. I agree we should address spending and reduce it.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from L-Kabong:

People earning 50k and less could be paying no Fed income taxes at all. Every wage earner should have some skin in the game.

I agree with you here, though I'd extend to every voter should have skin in the game.

On SS, we may or may not get it back. However, we won't do nearly as well as the early generation of SS recipients, who paid a lot less into the system.

 

[piezoe]

This thread is still another example of "bad reading" by the far right wing nuts, one in particular, who infest ET. In the linked article by Krugman, there is no suggestion by him that we should go back to a 91% top marginal rate.

What is currently being proposed by the administration is an adjustment of the top marginal rate upward by a few percent to return it to the Clinton era level. A sensible, moderate proposal, which Krugman would be in favor of.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from L-Kabong:

...
A self employed individual earning a 100k with 3 children and a mortgage could be paying as little as 5% in Federal taxes, not including SS and Medicare. People earning 50k and less could be paying no Fed income taxes at all. Every wage earner should have some skin in the game. I don't care if you decided to have nine kids; that doesn't let you off the hook.
...

Looking at things short term, I agree that we all should have some skin in a game. However, long term, population of the country is its future, and governmental policies should absolutely promote families. Even if it means the families, that have many kids, enjoy not paying taxes. The cost of raising children is quite high.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from piezoe:

This thread is still another example of "bad reading" by the far right wing nuts, one in particular, who infest ET. In the linked article by Krugman, there is no suggestion by him that we should go back to a 91% top marginal rate.

What is currently being proposed by the administration is an adjustment of the top marginal rate upward by a few percent to return it to the Clinton era level. A sensible, moderate proposal, which Krugman would be in favor of.

Where is the "sensible, moderate proposal" to go back to Clinton-era spending levels as a % of GDP?

I hope I'm one of the "wing nuts" you refer to, moonbat.

BTW, regarding the article, you might want to familiarize yourself with the definition of the word "imply".

If a GOP supporter wrote an article praising ANYTHING about the 1950's, the Left would be screeching that it was a "dog whistle" in support of a racist agenda. Letting Krugman get away with it may have been possible before everything political became scorched earth, but no more.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from piezoe:

This thread is still another example of "bad reading" by the far right wing nuts, one in particular, who infest ET. In the linked article by Krugman, there is no suggestion by him that we should go back to a 91% top marginal rate.

What is currently being proposed by the administration is an adjustment of the top marginal rate upward by a few percent to return it to the Clinton era level. A sensible, moderate proposal, which Krugman would be in favor of.

This from someone who

1) Has his own reading comprehension struggles.

2) Makes dubious claims and hopes no one catches them (as I have before).

3) Often thinks logical fallacies = cogent arguments.

4) Lists "love and romance" as his interests at ET. Sounds much more like an academic or propagandist for the state than a successful trader or entrepreneur.

Reader beware. I didn't want to go there, but I can only stand reading so many sweeping generalizations and ad hominem remarks.