Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/19/2012 6:21:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:26:10 AM EST
Remarkable. How does he address the Kennedy tax cuts as a model for economic stimulation? Inconvenient fact?
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:28:36 AM EST
At least that piece of shit finally gave an answer to the "fair share" idiocy.

91% is what those evil rich are suppose to pay.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:30:14 AM EST
I say do it and let's watch this fucker burn.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:30:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 6:33:09 AM EST by woodsie]
That stupid fuck leaves out the fact that the USA was also the unchallenged exporter to the world back in the 50's. Of course Unions can thrive and labor be highly compensated when you literally have zero competition. Those day are NEVER coming back with or without a 91% top rate.

Leave it to a guy like Paul Krugman to leave out any important details that don't fit his narrative.

ETA: Wow, it looks like several of the commenter to the article said basically the same thing. This gives me hope.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:32:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 6:32:29 AM EST by K5FAL]
I guess he forgot that there were write-offs out the wazoo back in the 1950's, but most leftists somehow leave that part out when they bring up the old 91% tax rate
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:32:18 AM EST
Yea that would make me want to keep my business in the U.S if I had one.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:32:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I say do it and let's watch this fucker burn.


Im in.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:32:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 6:35:44 AM EST by NotAFudd]
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
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:33:05 AM EST
He IS a retard.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:33:24 AM EST
The fact that this guy won a Nobel Prize in economics should tell you everything you need to know about both parties.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:34:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:34:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By woodsie:
That stupid fuck leaves out the fact that the USA was also the unchallenged exporter to the world back in the 50's. Of course Unions can thrive and labor be highly compensated when you literally have zero competition. Those day are NEVER coming back with or without a 91% top rate.

Leave it to a guy like Paul Krugman to leave out any important details that don't fit his narrative.

This,

We were exporting to a war torn Europe that had no manufacturing/worker base to think of. China had no manufacturing industry to speak of; Japan wouldn't see a technological surge until 40 years later; and OPEC was just a bunch of nomads in the desert.

Krugman's musings are missing several key facts.



Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:36:45 AM EST
The left is all in now. Krugman has always had an open door to obama. They've been saying that for a long time.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:36:51 AM EST
They'll run with this narrative, that way when they break the 40% off in your ass, you'll feel good.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:43:11 AM EST
The tax code in the 1950's was almost as convoluted and fucked up as it is now. There were tax loopholes that you could fly a 747 through.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:46:33 AM EST
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"
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:49:12 AM EST
HAHAHA! Let them implement a 100% tax code. We'll turn into Greece in very short order. Imagine a whole nation of tax cheats....
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:52:22 AM EST
To what purpose? It has to be for punitive reasons only. We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. We could tax 100% of everyone's income and it would not make a dent in the deficit.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:55:43 AM EST
Agree. He writes about 1955 and how there was 91% marginal rate for the rich, and 1/3 of all working citizens in labor unions.

Things have changed dear commie. Then, there were responsible individuals, many who had seen the worst the world had to offer through their sacrifice in the great wars. They saw where the socialism and communism and loss of freedom and fascism had led the world. The greatest generation is now about gone.

There is now a Free Shit Army that demands more and more entitlements coupled with a DC controlled anarchist idea of border control to allow the very worst to swamp our country and demand yet even more entitlements. This is not sustainable and cannot be cured by the Federal Govt printing more and more money and using every man woman and child's property, possessions, inheritance, etc. as collateral.

We are going over the cliff, and you dear commie are pontificating about marginal tax rates. STFU
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 6:58:25 AM EST
Sir Winston Churchill...

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:03:51 AM EST
Hell, why stop at 91% or even 100%? If a lot is good, then more must be better, right? How about a 200% tax on all income over $250,000/yr? Fair share, dammit!
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:13:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I say do it and let's watch this fucker burn.


This. Use JP4 on this bonfire.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:15:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Hell, why stop at 91% or even 100%? If a lot is good, then more must be better, right? How about a 200% tax on all income over $250,000/yr? Fair share, dammit!


find a fancy way to say that, and the occutards and such will eat it up...
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:16:24 AM EST
It only serves to keep the middle class in the middle, so they can never enter the upper class.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:17:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By fsjdw2:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Hell, why stop at 91% or even 100%? If a lot is good, then more must be better, right? How about a 200% tax on all income over $250,000/yr? Fair share, dammit!


find a fancy way to say that, and the occutards and such will eat it up...


They already wanted to BAN profits...

Yea, let that sink in.

Fuck Socialism, it is immoral.

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:27:02 AM EST
Anybody know the number of days the government could continue to run if we taxed the rich at 100%? It's not very long.

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:28:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 7:31:11 AM EST by narcedglocker]
Originally Posted By bslate07:
Anybody know the number of days the government could continue to run if we taxed the rich at 100%? It's not very long.



its around 265
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:29:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By narcedglocker:
Originally Posted By bslate07:
Anybody know the number of days the government could continue to run if we taxed the rich at 100%? It's not very long.



its around 265


Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:30:33 AM EST
Krugman officially went full retard


Not sure he ever slipped below 99% retard.

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:31:13 AM EST
Not the 1st time I've heard that from the left.


Fucking idiots.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:31:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:33:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By slabertooch:

Originally Posted By narcedglocker:
Originally Posted By bslate07:
Anybody know the number of days the government could continue to run if we taxed the rich at 100%? It's not very long.



its around 265

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ


yup, you can only do it once
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:34:52 AM EST
You know whats funny about this? I was once sitting around with a freind of mines family. He's on the border between Libertarian and Conservative, but his family is batshit liberal, to the point of his Mom actually trying to argue if favor of Stalin's purges once as "necessary".

I flat out asked them what they thought the absolute maximum amount of money the state and federal government should be able to tax a persons income, regardless of the amount of money made. There was a lot of back and forth, and we had to throw in the caveat of "assuming a system with no deductions or loopholes". This was going to be a percentage right off the top of the persons gross income.

They came back with between 33-40%, and they thought this represented a significance hike over what high earners paid right now.

It was fun telling them what people at the high end of the income spectrum actually paid.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:43:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2012 2:38:37 PM EST by sbhaven]
Cannot have a Paul Krugman thread without posting this gem from his own blog...

"Who is this Sean from Florida? He takes everything that [the] Professor [says] and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology."

The left trots out Krugman to try and give some air of legitimacy to their failed economic theories and their fervent desire to redistribute the wealth so everyone is dragged down to the level of the poorest person in this country and made equally miserable.

ETA: Link fixed
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:44:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:44:29 AM EST
Went was a long time ago.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 7:45:29 AM EST
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021847178

DU agrees
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:31:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Cannot have a Paul Krugman thread without posting this gem from his own blog...

"Who is this Sean from Florida? He takes everything that [the] Professor [says] and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology."

The left trots out Krugman to try and give some air of legitimacy to their failed economic theories and their fervent desire to redistribute the wealth so everyone is dragged down to the level of the poorest person in this country and made equally miserable.


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

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:36:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By ken_mays:
To what purpose? It has to be for punitive reasons only. We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. We could tax 100% of everyone's income and it would not make a dent in the deficit.


Your comment does not fit the desired narative.

Kindly board the train to the left for re-education.


Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:37:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
He didn't "went" anywhere––he's always been a leftist hack. Someone should tell him if the "golden days" of socialist unions came back companies can/will simply use labor in other countries to produce goods. He, his dogma, and unions are a relic of a dead age.


This

Anyone who takes Paul Krugman seriously gets exactly what they deserve.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:38:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I say do it and let's watch this fucker burn.


Why stop at 91% lets go 101%


Why not, we will get there quicker.


Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:38:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:40:51 AM EST
If krugman were a man of honor ( yeah right ) he himself would, of his own volition, pay taxes at the 91% rate. Lead from the front ya drunk commie bastard.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:41:55 AM EST
Jesus Christ, this guy apparently ignores everything from the invention of the intermodal container to the internet.

Originally Posted By riceshooter:
The tax code in the 1950's was almost as convoluted and fucked up as it is now. There were tax loopholes that you could fly a 747 through.


It was my understanding that back then credit card interest was tax deductible, along with a shit ton other stuff.

Krugman is an idiot.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 8:49:05 AM EST
Krugman is a dick.

Wow, 0.01 were really rich in the 50's,

Now it is 1%.

I'm just a working stiff and I live in the kind of house that a doctor, or upper manager would have lived in back in the 50's.

Poor folks have cars, AC, Color TV, Cell Phones, Internet etc. When I was a kid, my dad was a working stiff like me and we had one car for the whole family, a party line phone, and a tiny black and white TV. It was a big deal when we finally got a second car.

What douche nozzle Krugman won't admit is that EVERYONE is richer than in the 50's. Why the hell should I care that a few rich guys got richer faster than everyone else? It doesn't make me less well off. What is making me less well off is Krugman and the leftist thugs killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is no mystery in my mind who the enemy of prosperity is, and its not random rich folks.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:03:53 AM EST
I don't think we should tax them to death, but we should tax it until they hurt.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:05:44 AM EST



i've gotten to the point where i can only say, "good. do it."

Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:05:50 AM EST
I heard this idiot on NPR a while back and almost cried. His 'narrative' was presented as 'cutting edge' thinking on the current economy. Another one who probably should be hung if caught after a (the) collapse.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:07:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Remarkable. How does he address the Kennedy tax cuts as a model for economic stimulation? Inconvenient fact?


Never presuppose intellectual honesty when it comes to Paul Krugman.
Link Posted: 11/19/2012 9:09:48 AM EST
fuck income just tax wealth...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top