Thread by @Gormogons

GP "Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue."

nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opi…

GP Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman takes to the pages of the NYT to advocate for confiscating the money earned by our highest earners in the name of redistribution.

GP Krugman's comparison to the high marginal rates post-WW2 is particularly galling. As he surely knows, the US was the only game in town after WW2 destroyed every other industrialized economy in the world.

GP And that extra tax revenue was used to pay down the debt accumulated by the US and spent on mobilizing the entire economy for fighting WW2. Is Krugman advocating using the extra revenue to pay down the national debt today?

GP Newp. Krugman basically says the new revenue generated should be used to fund massive new social programs, debt be damned.

GP A better approach would be a more broad based income tax, hitting everyone for at least $1, even the poor. If I am to be taxed to fund the poor, the less fortunate should be taxed just to show them the feeling when government takes out of your wallet at the point of a gun.

GP This isn't spiteful. Consider it team building. If I'm to pay a goodly chunk of my earnings to fund others' lives, the least they can do is make a token effort to show support. And please don't get uppity about "they can't afford a dollar."

GP Until you've gone through tons of Chapter 13 petitions and seen what people consider essential and what they spend (or spent) their money on, don't lecture me on whether the "poor" have a dollar a year to contribute to the nation's upkeep.

GP Unlike some, I don't have an ideological issue with paying taxes to support government. My issue lies with spiraling taxes coupled with massive government borrowing to fund a cradle to grave welfare system where the takers get to vote on how much of makers' money they can keep

GP If Democrats insist on raising taxes, fine. Republicans should insist that any increased revenues be dedicated to paying down the national debt and for no other purpose.

GP The legislation should also strip Congressional immunity from suit and personal liability should they spend the increased revenue for other purposes. It should also include a three year sunset clause and require a supermajority vote to renew.

GP But back to Krugman. Be clear on what he's advocating: endless spending financed by funds taken from "the rich" (which he never defines) at the business end of a government assault rifle.

GP At a certain point, taxation truly does become theft.

GorT to GP: But let’s be more specific about Krugman’s piece - we should be answering why the *federal* government needs more revenue. What programs do we need to fund? And do we need to fund all the programs currently in flight?

GorT: If we ignore these questions (as Krugman does in his piece and many on the left do), then it is just theft as you say. “The gov't wants your money” vs. “The gov’t needs your money to do X"

GP The federal government only needs more revenue because it's doing things the federal government was never intended to do, like fund a cradle to grave welfare system and micromanage states' education systems.

GorT: you and I know this. Krugman and others of his ilk are ignoring it. It should be called out and questioned directly.

GorT: Also, was doing some more digging. Krugman references the chart in the story as showing “GDP per capita” which is usually measured as a dollar figure not as a percentage. I assume his axis on the right ranging from 0 to 4 is GDP % - NOT, GDP per capita.

GorT: GDP per capita has been growing steadily since 2009. And it hit an all time high in 2017.

GorT: Here is the chart of “GDP per capita” over the same time period:

GorT: Krugman is measuring “growth” in GPD per capita which is really cherry picking on the data. He’s conflating economic growth with population growth (as the “per capita” part is growing as well).

GorT: One could easily have charted “growth in GDP per capita” vs. federal spending, national debt, etc. and write an opinion piece on how the rising federal spending correlates with the decline of “growth in GDP per capita"