Class Warfare: Village Idiot Paul Krugman Advocates 91% Tax Rate On ‘The Rich’

I find it amazing this guy still is employed with ‘insights’ such a this:

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.

The reason for exorbitant taxes rates according to Krugman? Class warfare.

Nor were high taxes the only burden wealthy businessmen had to bear. They also faced a labor force with a degree of bargaining power hard to imagine today. In 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union members. In the biggest companies, management and labor bargained as equals, so much so that it was common to talk about corporations serving an array of “stakeholders” as opposed to merely serving stockholders.

Squeezed between high taxes and empowered workers, executives were relatively impoverished by the standards of either earlier or later generations. In 1955 Fortune magazine published an essay, “How top executives live,” which emphasized how modest their lifestyles had become compared with days of yore. The vast mansions, armies of servants, and huge yachts of the 1920s were no more; by 1955 the typical executive, Fortune claimed, lived in a smallish suburban house, relied on part-time help and skippered his own relatively small boat.

The data confirm Fortune’s impressions. Between the 1920s and the 1950s real incomes for the richest Americans fell sharply, not just compared with the middle class but in absolute terms. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, in 1955 the real incomes of the top 0.01 percent of Americans were less than half what they had been in the late 1920s, and their share of total income was down by three-quarters.

This is so blindingly stupid it is not even funny.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are two thousand words worth of charts. First, real income since the late 1950′s:

In terms of (chained) 2005 dollars, personal income has steadily rose until 2009. Yet, counter to what the Krugman recommends, tax rates on ‘the rich’ have steadily decreased.

Not surprisingly, the downward trend in top marginal tax rates corresponds with a rising standard of living & the associated increase in disposable income.  You know, things most important to the average American.

Getting back to Krugman, it seems I’m not a very nice person since I dare disagree with him.

There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.

Along the way, however, we’ve forgotten something important — namely, that economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again.

What a pompous ass…

Comments
  • Jim at Conservatives on Fire November 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “What a pompous ass”

    Of course. We are talking about Paul Krugman. I have often wondered how much it cost George Soros to get Krugman a Nobel Prize? :-)

    • steve November 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm

      I often wonder how low the bar is to receive a Nobel Prize. I mean, Obama was awarded one for not being GWB.

Trackbacks