• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Krugman v. Krugman

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

Irrelevant. But technically you're wrong on that too. A person's net worth(particularly when it gets in the $50 million dollar range is invested to generate wealth. The capital gains that they make on those investments don't get taxed until they ultimately decide to sell the investment. This allows them all sorts of strategies to defer those taxes and in some cases not pay them at all. Warren's plan requires a tax be paid on that growing nest egg whether you sell any investments that year or not.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, there's nothing about this that would be more extreme than anything Denmark already does. It may be a different approach, but it's not radical or extreme.
 
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.

Meh, Forbes doesn't seem to have a very difficult time with it.
 
"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. " -Krugman.

Well as the saying goes - If you're in San Francisco-Las Vegas is east.And I gues everyhing is dependent on what you call 'radical'.

But I really find it laughable that a far leftie like Krugman has any standing on commenting on what is far left.

To us normal folks, people like Kamala Harris a, Bernie Sanders, Alex Cortez and Elizabeth are all far left.

and I'm sure we are going to see the in-the-bag-for Democrats MSM pushing these people as 'centrists'
 
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.

So basically, one has to start off by agreeing to every one of your contentions:

1. A wealth tax is far left.

2. Denmark is far left.

3. Denmark doesn't have a wealth tax, thus a proposal for a wealth tax is to the left of Denmark.

I simply don't agree with those contentions other than the fact that Denmark does not have a specific wealth tax.

My contentions are:

1. Even if we had a 2% wealth tax for households with over 50 million a year in income, their tax burden would still be much lower than it would be in Denmark, or for that matter, the OECD average.

2. We already have wealth taxes. We just don't call them wealth taxes. We call them property taxes and personal property taxes. Even some of the most conservative state's in the country have these taxes.

https://slate.com/business/2013/03/...roperty-taxes-and-they-re-not-very-smart.html
 
But it's not on income, it's on wealth; one's net worth.

In in the end it is the same. Your tax liabilities are your tax liabilities. You pay income, property, sales, and often personal property taxes every year. Personal property taxes is nothing more than a wealth tax by another name, as is property taxes when you get down to it. I don't know if a wealth tax is a good idea or not, it is simply my contention that proposing a wealth tax does not make one to the left of Denmark.

Such an argument is as dumb of an argument as saying that a state that doesn't have a property tax is automatically to the right of Texas.
 
No. It's 100% relevant. That you don't understand why is immaterial.

Really? That's funny, cause I just explained perfectly why and you ignored my explanation without any attempt to rebut it.
 
So basically, one has to start off by agreeing to every one of your contentions:

1. A wealth tax is far left.

True.

2. Denmark is far left.

Denmark was Krugman's standard, not mine.

3. Denmark doesn't have a wealth tax, thus a proposal for a wealth tax is to the left of Denmark.

Why, yes.


I simply don't agree with those contentions other than the fact that Denmark does not have a specific wealth tax.

You're wrong about 1; for 2, your problem is with Krugman.


My contentions are:

1. Even if we had a 2% wealth tax for households with over 50 million a year in income, their tax burden would still be much lower than it would be in Denmark, or for that matter, the OECD average.

2. We already have wealth taxes. We just don't call them wealth taxes. We call them property taxes and personal property taxes. Even some of the most conservative state's in the country have these taxes.

https://slate.com/business/2013/03/...roperty-taxes-and-they-re-not-very-smart.html

Good lord. There is no point in talking to someone who STILL thinks Warren proposed an INCOME tax, after being corrected by three different people, four different times. You have a good day.
 
Really? That's funny, cause I just explained perfectly why and you ignored my explanation without any attempt to rebut it.

Really.
 

This is a big deal as with it comes having to report exactly everything you own to the federal government.

People need to learn from history. The first peace time income tax was a mere 2% and applied to less than 10% of Americans - people assured that was as high as it would go. Of course, that was a lie.

Elizabeth Warren knows that 95+% of Americans know nothing of history, so wants to start exactly the same as how federal income taxes were introduced: swear it is only 2% and doesn't apply to anyone but the rich. Once the door is open to a new tax, it will go higher and higher and higher - as IRS SWAT teams are seizing everything people have for IRS audits of their "wealth" level.
 
True.



Denmark was Krugman's standard, not mine.



Why, yes.




You're wrong about 1; for 2, your problem is with Krugman.




Good lord. There is no point in talking to someone who STILL thinks Warren proposed an INCOME tax, after being corrected by three different people, four different times. You have a good day.

I misspoke, well misswrote, Warrent proposed a 2% wealth tax on households with over 50 million in wealth in any given year. Please show me where Krugman said a wealth tax is to the left of Denmark? He didn't, you are just using that as a strawman. You are arguing that since Denmark dropped its wealth tax, a wealth tax is more liberal than Denmark. That is a stupid argument.

For example, I contend there is no tax more liberal, more communist than a property tax. Thus, I contend that Texas because of it's high property taxes is one of the most marxist state's in the union. Thus I contend that if anyone proposed a property tax higher than they have in Texas, they must be a communist.

That in a nutshell is your style of argument here.
 
I mispoke you propsed a 2% wealth tax on households with over 50 million in wealth in any given year. Please show me where Krugman said a wealth tax is to the left of Denmark? He didn't, you are just using that as a strawman.

For example, I contend there is no tax more liberal, more communist than a property tax. Thus, I contend that Texas because of it's high property taxes is one of the most marxist state's in the union. Thus I contend that if anyone proposed a property tax higher than they have in Texas, they must be a communist.

That in a nutshell is your style of argument here.

My god; I didn't propose anything.

The level of failure you've displayed in thread is catastrophic.
 
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?

It's not a tax on income, it's a tax on wealth.
 
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.



I realize the radical right's desire to prove Krugman wrong. However, it is true that none of the policies Democrats are proposing are "radical." For most of the 20th Century, top income tax rates were 70% or more. Those rates weren't radical then and returning to them now won't be radical either.

Denmark is a capitalist country with a healthy social safety net. Becoming more radically left than them means moving to state control of industry -- of which not one Democrat is proposing.

By "fanatical centrists," Krugman is referring to people like the Starbucks guy and Mike Bloomberg that think that providing universal healthcare would bankrupt the country, even though whatever taxes that requires is smaller than what we collectively pay in insurance premiums. The Starbucks guy also thinks that taxing billionaires, like himself, is a bad idea.

The idea of a wealth tax isn't new either. I think North Carolina either has one or had one.

You know what policy objectives ARE radical? The ones on the right, such as privatizing Medicare and Social Security, abolishing the IRS and returning to the gold standard.
 
I realize the radical right's desire to prove Krugman wrong. However, it is true that none of the policies Democrats are proposing are "radical." For most of the 20th Century, top income tax rates were 70% or more. Those rates weren't radical then and returning to them now won't be radical either.

Denmark is a capitalist country with a healthy social safety net. Becoming more radically left than them means moving to state control of industry -- of which not one Democrat is proposing.

By "fanatical centrists," Krugman is referring to people like the Starbucks guy and Mike Bloomberg that think that providing universal healthcare would bankrupt the country, even though whatever taxes that requires is smaller than what we collectively pay in insurance premiums. The Starbucks guy also thinks that taxing billionaires, like himself, is a bad idea.

The idea of a wealth tax isn't new either. I think North Carolina either has one or had one.

You know policy objectives ARE radical? The ones on the right, such as privatizing Medicare and Social Security, abolishing the IRS and returning to the gold standard.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand in that it's Krugman who set Denmark as the standard, not I. But several of you are having that difficulty.
 
I don't know what's so difficult to understand in that it's Krugman who set Denmark as the standard, not I. But several of you are having that difficulty.
No misinterpretation at all. Denmark is not a leftist country. It has a high rate of entrepreneurship, with high taxes and a generous safety net. But Denmark is indeed a capitalist country. The idea of "radical" leftism is moving from capitalism to socialism, which no Democratic candidate is advocating.

I see nothing radical in having high taxes on income or a small tax on wealth, coupled with a robust social safety net. I think we'd be a much happier country.
 
No misinterpretation at all. Denmark is not a leftist country. It has a high rate of entrepreneurship, with high taxes and a generous safety net. But Denmark is indeed a capitalist country. The idea of "radical" leftism is moving from capitalism to socialism, which no Democratic candidate is advocating.

I see nothing radical in having high taxes on income or a small tax on wealth, coupled with a robust social safety net. I think we'd be a much happier country.

Then your problem with is Krugman, who used Denmark as his standard. Why do you not grasp this?
 
This is a big deal as with it comes having to report exactly everything you own to the federal government.

People need to learn from history. The first peace time income tax was a mere 2% and applied to less than 10% of Americans - people assured that was as high as it would go. Of course, that was a lie.

Elizabeth Warren knows that 95+% of Americans know nothing of history, so wants to start exactly the same as how federal income taxes were introduced: swear it is only 2% and doesn't apply to anyone but the rich. Once the door is open to a new tax, it will go higher and higher and higher - as IRS SWAT teams are seizing everything people have for IRS audits of their "wealth" level.
Ok, you got us. We just want to get the foot in the door so that we can confiscate everything you own. What you are writing is as paranoid as what Ronald Reagan said in 1961 about why we shouldn't pass Medicare -- 'because you will be telling your grandchildren what is was like when men were free.'

Ronald Reagan - Medicare Will Bring A Socialist Dictatorship
 
Then your problem with is Krugman, who used Denmark as his standard. Why do you not grasp this?
Sorry, I am missing what you think is a problem.

The first post makes it seem as there is an inconsistency between the two columns written by Dr. Krugman. I see no inconsistency.
 
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.

How is a tax on wealth any different from a tax on property that is based on it's value? Are property taxes "far left"?
 
Ok, you got us. We just want to get the foot in the door so that we can confiscate everything you own. What you are writing is as paranoid as what Ronald Reagan said in 1961 about why we shouldn't pass Medicare -- 'because you will be telling your grandchildren what is was like when men were free.'

Ronald Reagan - Medicare Will Bring A Socialist Dictatorship

Hate history if you want to. Once a new tax is added it is never eliminated, only expanded. The way income tax was sold to Americans is how liberals will sell this - that this is a tiny tax only against really rich people. Once the tax was established, it was increased to as high as 90% and who income tax most landed on is the middle class, because the rich write themselves exemptions in the tax code. The same would apply here.

After the leftwing lies that this will only be a tax against the rich - to the mob cheering "yeah! Take money from the rich people!" instead it will become both a federal property tax and a federal tax against people's retirement and savings accounts - landing again on the middle class. The rich, instead, will have still another incentive to put their wealth outside of the USA and with writing the tax code though Congress they own not only would they pay no wealth tax, the government would be again paying them money - taken from the middle class.
 
My god; I didn't propose anything.

The level of failure you've displayed in thread is catastrophic.

You replied to that before I corrected it to "Warren proposed".
 
Hate history if you want to. Once a new tax is added it is never eliminated, only expanded. The way income tax was sold to Americans is how liberals will sell this - that this is a tiny tax only against really rich people. Once the tax was established, it was increased to as high as 90% and who income tax most landed on is the middle class, because the rich write themselves exemptions in the tax code. The same would apply here.

After the leftwing lies that this will only be a tax against the rich - to the mob cheering "yeah! Take money from the rich people!" instead it will become both a federal property tax and a federal tax against people's retirement and savings accounts - landing again on the middle class. The rich, instead, will have still another incentive to put their wealth outside of the USA and with writing the tax code though Congress they own not only would they pay no wealth tax, the government would be again paying them money - taken from the middle class.
1. Tax rates rise and fall. So, to assert that they never are eliminated is just false. In the 1980s, there was a luxury tax on yachts. Now there is not.
2. The 90% top marginal tax rate didn’t fall on middle class. It fell on the richest among us.
3. I don’t understand your argument. You argue that taxes on the rich end up falling on the middle class. So, what is your alternative, raising taxes on the middle class?
4. You say that raising taxes on the rich would drive money out of the U.S. a) there is no historical examples of that actually happening. b) where are they going to put that money where tax rates are lower and there money will be safe?
 
Sorry, I am missing what you think is a problem.

I don't have the problem. You do. And it's a problem you need to take up with Krugman, not me, because it's his standard (Denmark), not mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom