Thread by @bansisharma

Fair Share of Taxes

Don't buy the socialist crap about who does and doesn't pay 'fair share' of taxes. The burden of taxes in the U.S. falls fairly and squarely on the upper income brackets.

As I have written extensively, the ONLY way to grow govt revenue is through GDP growth.

1. Paul Krugman has penned a fallacious article on "The Economics of Soaking the Rich" to suck up to and normalize Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's brain-fart about raising the marginal tax rate to 70-80%.
nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opi…

2. Krugman's sole appeal to authority is an arcane 2011 academic paper by economists Diamond & Saez in which, based on much mathematical skulduggery, they opined that the optimal marginal tax rate for the U.S. is ... 73%. I am surprised they rounded it to a whole percentage.

3. Of course Diamond & Silk, sorry Diamond & Saez, had derived their magical number of 73% based on a single period data as if the rich will pay taxes one year and then never change their behavior in the following years to minimize their taxes.

4. Krugman (@paulkrugman) then trots out this chart to make his Nobel-Laureate-turned-quack observation: "What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich and did just fine." Are you freaking kidding me, Mr. Krugman?!!! Is that all you see in this chart?

5. Allow me to read this chart to you, Mr. Krugman. First of all, why did you start at 1957. Why not 1930? Allow me to fill in. In 1930's marginal rates were much lower and economic growth was in double-digits, yes even through The Great Depression. Very inconvenient, huh!

6. Furthermore, look at the chart carefully. It clearly shows every time the marginal rate is lowered, economic growth goes up. Only after the marginal rates were dropped below 40% did the economic growth stabilize above 2%.

7. Furthermore, there is zero evidence in history, in theory, or in any paper published anywhere, that this chart is temporally reversible, i.e. you can play it backwards for 60 years and get the same result. We are not living in a period just after WWII right now, are we?

8. If Paul Krugman wrote his comments about the above chart in a respected economics journal, he will be laughed out of town, his Nobel Prize notwithstanding. But he knows NY Times readership will lap up any garbage he dishes out so long as it sounds good to their liberal ears.

9. What a shame that this Nobel Laureate has reduced himself to the role of serving as a handmaiden to a 29 year old clueless socialist rendition of a drastically dumbed down Sarah Palin! I guess everyone has to make a living.

The End

Analyze This @paulkrugman & @AOC!

Regardless of the marginal tax rates, at no point in history in the United States, the average tax rate paid by the top 1% earners has exceeded 45%. Here's the data.

Here's The Bitter Truth @paulkrugman and @AOC

During the heady days of 80-90+% marginal tax rates, i.e. during 50's, 60's and 70's, the Top 1% actually paid a lower average tax rate on their earnings than they did during the 40's when marginal tax rates were lower. Chew on that!