Quoted:
Not the 1st time I've heard that from the left.


Fucking idiots.
 

Quoted:


True. Here's Phil Donahue in the late 70s.


http://youtu.be/p31-xQ2Rrz4

Quoted:

Winston Churchill had a great quote about a nation trying to tax itself into prosperiety. It was something like "a man standing inside a bucket and trying to lift himself up off the ground by the handle"

Quoted:


The fact that this guy won a Nobel Prize in economics should tell you everything you need to know about both parties.

Quoted:


All you need to know about the Nobel Prize is that Yassir Arafat won the PEACE prize in 1994 and Obama won it in 2009 before making any significant impact on anything.  

Quoted:
http://media.hoover.org/images/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg?size=large

The problem is, there are plenty of people who, upon seeing this, and even if they believe it, don't care––––I have spoken with a person who, per his words, didn't care that jacking up taxes for the rich wouldn't bring in any more revenue.  He simply wanted them taxed out of "fairness."

Quoted:
Words cannot define how stupid this man is. The fact that this moron received the Nobel Prize totally makes the Nobel Prize worthless. If he can get it, any bum can get one... including Obama.

This guy probably jerks off to photos of Keynes.

Quoted:
Link fail.  Try again, please.  I'd like to read that.  Thanks

Quoted:
They'll  run with this narrative, that way when they break the 40% off in your ass, you'll feel good.

Quoted:
To make it even funnier in Krugman's earlier text books he refutes the very theories that he "supports" now.  I think he is strictly aiming for a .gov position of influence.  No economist I know takes him seriously anymore.

ETA: Historically regardless of tax rate revenue has been about 18% of GDP to the .gov. regardless of tax rates.  So once again the only way to raise revenue for the .gov is to expand GDP.  (well we could hyper-inflate our way out of it too)

End of econmics and taxes lesson 1

Quoted:
Everyone here needs to read THIS.

Quoted:


Im in.

That 91% tax rate: Krugman writes:

[I]n the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today. [E.A.]

According to this CRS study, that 91% marginal rate produced an effective income tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of only about 45%. Krugman himself appears to be relying on Piketty and Saez–but they come in with an even lower figure, 31%. They only get to 70% by including corporate taxes, which Krugman mentions, and estate taxes–which he doesn’t mention at all.

Why didn’t they? Here are Picketty and Saez ,concluding that the effective income tax rate

in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent. [E.A.]

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/21/krugmans-twinkie-defense/#ixzz2CrW4pYGH

Quoted:
Bring back the 91% tax rate

Quoted:







its around 265