Krugman v. Krugman

[Harshaw]

Today:

Radical leftists are virtually nonexistent in American politics; can you think of any prominent figure who wants us to move to the left of, say, Denmark? No, I’m talking about fanatical centrists.

Monday of this week:

Well, Elizabeth Warren has released an impressive proposal for taxing extreme wealth. And whether or not she herself becomes the Democratic nominee for president, it says good things about her party that something this smart and daring is even part of the discussion.

The Warren proposal would impose a 2 percent annual tax on an individual household’s net worth in excess of $50 million, and an additional 1 percent on wealth in excess of $1 billion.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Today:



Monday of this week:

A 2% increase in taxation on income that exceeds 50 million a year is "radically leftist" to you? If a 2% wealth tax is communism, then what is actual communism?

 

[ttwtt78640]

A 2% increase in taxation on income that exceeds 50 million a year is "radically leftist" to you? If a 2% wealth tax is communism, then what is actual communism?

Warren is proposing the addition of a federal wealth tax. What federal power allows that? Hint: certainly not the 16A.

 

[Harshaw]

A 2% increase in taxation on income that exceeds 50 million a year is "radically leftist" to you? If a 2% wealth tax is communism, then what is actual communism?

Who said anything about "communism"? The standard was "left of Denmark," who abandoned their wealth -- not income -- tax decades ago.

 

[roughdraft274]

Who said anything about "communism"? The standard was "left of Denmark," who abandoned their wealth -- not income -- tax decades ago.

1 single leftist policy that Denmark doesn't have doesn't move the entire country to the left of Denmark. His statements do not contradict each other at all.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Who said anything about "communism"? The standard was "left of Denmark," who abandoned their wealth -- not income -- tax decades ago.

So what. Total taxation in Denmark is still much, much higher than it is in the United States and still would be with Warren's proposed wealth tax. Denmark's top tax rate is 55.8% and that doesn't even get into their VAT taxes and so on.

Sorry, but I fail to see how a 2% wealth tax on income over 50 million a year, whether its a good idea or not, would put us to the left of Denmark. By the way, it's all semantics. What do you think a property tax is and particularly a personal property tax is? It's just another type of wealth tax.

 

[Chomsky]

While I support the general principle of the wealthy paying a higher burden of taxes, I'm uneasy with this plan.

We often hear of taxes and social benefits being refereed to as "income redistribution". I do not ascribe to that term being used in our currently applied tax & benefit situations. But taxing one's wealth, might be going too far. However we do tax one's real property, so it's not like this would be without precedent.

 

[Harshaw]

So what. Total taxation in Denmark is still much, much higher than it is in the United States and still would be with Warren's proposed wealth tax. Denmark's top tax rate is 55.8% and that doesn't even get into their VAT taxes and so on.

Sorry, but I fail to see how a 2% wealth tax on income over 50 million a year, whether its a good idea or not, would put us to the left of Denmark. By the way, it's all semantics. What do you think a property tax is and particularly a personal property tax is? It's just another type of wealth tax.

You have been corrected twice that it's not a tax on income, but a tax on accumulated wealth. Do you not understand the difference, or do you simply not care and are happy knowingly conflating the two?

A wealth tax is far-left. Denmark doesn't have one. It specifically abandoned it, a generation ago. It's a proposal, by a prominent Democrat, which is left of Denmark, and it's one described by Krugman himself a mere four days beforehand.

 

[Harshaw]

1 single leftist policy that Denmark doesn't have doesn't move the entire country to the left of Denmark. His statements do not contradict each other at all.

If you say so.

 

[Chomsky]

So what. Total taxation in Denmark is still much, much higher than it is in the United States and still would be with Warren's proposed wealth tax. Denmark's top tax rate is 55.8% and that doesn't even get into their VAT taxes and so on.

Sorry, but I fail to see how a 2% wealth tax on income over 50 million a year, whether its a good idea or not, would put us to the left of Denmark. By the way, it's all semantics. What do you think a property tax is and particularly a personal property tax is? It's just another type of wealth tax.

But it's not on income, it's on wealth; one's net worth.

 

[Chomsky]

If you say so.

But it's true. America is no way near Left of DK, even if we went with Warren's wealth tax.

 

[Harshaw]

But it's true. America is no way near Left of DK, even if we went with Warren's wealth tax.

It is a proposal left of Denmark, something Krugman said no prominent Democrat has done.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Today:

Monday of this week:

Should be Piketty v. Krugman. Doesn't make sense why Krugman is slobbering over U.S. wealth tax concepts that have been shown in Europe to fail because there isn't capacity of single nations to police capital flight, suggesting we would first develop bigger systems of global financial governance (bit of a tall order, right?).

 

[Chomsky]

It is a proposal left of Denmark, something Krugman said no prominent Democrat has done.

Well it's an extremely narrow point from one pol that will most likely never come to fruition, but you are right in that it's technically correct.

 

[Harshaw]

Well it's an extremely narrow point from one pol that will most likely never come to fruition, but you are right in that it's technically correct.

Point is, Krugman asked his question when only a few days before he had answered it himself.

 

[Chomsky]

Should be Piketty v. Krugman. Doesn't make sense why Krugman is slobbering over U.S. wealth tax concepts that have been shown in Europe to fail because there isn't capacity of single nations to police capital flight, suggesting we would first develop bigger systems of global financial governance (bit of a tall order, right?).

Actually, the bolded is one of the reasons we tax real-estate. Real-estate sits there in plain sight, and is an easy target. But trying to tax one's net worth, would be an unequivocal mess!

It would be a mess in large part, because we can mandate that businesses and other entities must report income paid or distributed. But what singular entity (besides the individual) can determine one's global aggregate net worth? None. What a mess ...

 

[roughdraft274]

It is a proposal left of Denmark, something Krugman said no prominent Democrat has done.

If he had said "no prominent figure has proposed any thing that is left of what denmark does" then I'd agree with you. But he didn't say that. I think the very obvious meaning here is "proposes taking the country as a whole to the left of Denmark." And I think he's 100% correct.

 

[Nickyjo]

While I support the general principle of the wealthy paying a higher burden of taxes, I'm uneasy with this plan.

We often hear of taxes and social benefits being refereed to as "income redistribution". I do not ascribe to that term being used in our currently applied tax & benefit situations. But taxing one's wealth, might be going too far. However we do tax one's real property, so it's not like this would be without precedent.

My point as well. My wealth, in the form of a rental property, is taxed every year. In addition, wouldn't everyone love to be in such a pickle to have to pay such a tax? Still, this seems awkward.

 

[roughdraft274]

Actually, the bolded is one of the reasons we tax real-estate. Real-estate sits there in plain sight, and is an easy target. But trying to tax one's net worth, would be an unequivocal mess!

It would be a mess in large part, because we can mandate that businesses and other entities must report income paid or distributed. But what singular entity (besides the individual) can determine one's global aggregate net worth? None. What a mess ...

I have to agree on this. Warren was asked how this would be enforceable the other day and she didn't have a good answer at all. She just said something along the lines of "we already do it for X reasons, we would just hire more people and get it done" which I think is an evasion.

 

[Harshaw]

If he had said "no prominent figure has proposed any thing that is left of what denmark does" then I'd agree with you. But he didn't say that. I think the very obvious meaning here is "proposes taking the country as a whole to the left of Denmark." And I think he's 100% correct.

Then that is the way you will read it. :shrug:

 

[MrWonka]

Today:

Monday of this week:

Do you not know anything about Denmark? This isn't even remotely a contradiction. In fact, this is a return to the same type of Tax Brackets we had back in the '50s and '60s. You know back when Trump supporters seem to think America was Great.

 

[roughdraft274]

My point as well. My wealth, in the form of a rental property, is taxed every year. In addition, wouldn't everyone love to be in such a pickle to have to pay such a tax? Still, this seems awkward.

Do you mean in the form of a local property tax? Or taxed on the income you make off if it? Or is the value of the rental property being taxed by the federal government in some way? Very ignorant of the applicable tax laws so just asking.

 

[Harshaw]

Do you not know anything about Denmark? This isn't even remotely a contradiction. In fact, this is a return to the same type of Tax Brackets we had back in the '50s and '60s. You know back when Trump supporters seem to think America was Great.

You, apparently, like SouthernDemocrat, think Warren's proposal is for an income tax.

 

[MrWonka]

I have to agree on this. Warren was asked how this would be enforceable the other day and she didn't have a good answer at all. She just said something along the lines of "we already do it for X reasons, we would just hire more people and get it done" which I think is an evasion.

No, it's just a stupid question. We already have a 35% tax rate on high incomes. If we can reasonably enforce that there's nothing special that would be needed to enforce what Warren is proposing.

 

[roughdraft274]

No, it's just a stupid question. We already have a 35% tax rate on high incomes. If we can reasonably enforce that there's nothing special that would be needed to enforce what Warren is proposing.

She's not proposing taxing incomes. She's proposing to tax wealth. It's much easier to find the income that people make than to keep track of every diamond bracelet and yacht and painting owned by a billionaire. That's just a fact imo. I'm not bashing her as though she's the only one to propose something without a concrete plan to enforce every detail. I'm aware it's very common for politicians. But I think it's a very obvious problem that it's hard to enforce. Not that it's impossible, just very difficult.