Call it Socialism but Krugman Likes 91% Tax on Selfish Millionaires — They Don’t Help Society Anyway

“People contemplating that second $100 million might say, ‘Is this really what I want to do with my life?’  And that would be a terrible thing if you thought that, on average, that people who acquire that second $100 million are doing great things for society, but I think we‘ve gotten a pretty good lesson that that’s mostly not true.”

Comments (313)

1 2 3 ... 8
  • Ironclad
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:45pm

    Listen, you socialists and communists that read and post here, there are alot of communist countries you can go to, renounce your citizenship and go there instead of trying to make the land of the free and the home of the brave, the exact opposite. I love my freedoms and I want my daughter and her children to experience the same. thank you.

    Report Post » Ironclad  
    • Mr Sanders
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 6:37am

      America is in the way of their ‘perfect utopia’ and the problem can’t be ignored. They, Progressives, have to make this last big push. No matter what, truth and lies play, but the truth wins every time! I’ll never understand why this corrupt government concept keeps getting picked up out of the ashes of the fire?! Maybe insecurity, control, lack of control, envy, or just want power. Money is a tool – some know how to utilize it, are blessed with insights into it and keep it sharp. I don’t know this Krugman guy, besides I‘m a ’Homer Simpson’ anyway, what do I know, but obviously he hasn’t made his first $100M. If you have, its harder to keep, as the scenario depicts above, 90% tax?! Wow. I’ve never seen a down-n-out person offer anyone a job?! I wonder if he knows that readership aren’t the ones paying/bank-rolling his paycheck?

      Report Post » Mr Sanders  
    • abc
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:48pm

      First, freedom includes freedom to talk about tax policy and vote candidates that favor one tax rate over another, so telling those who favor higher rates to move to another country represents a limitation on freedom. If you are proud of your freedom in the US, then you ought to encourage different point of view and not be afraid to debate them freely. Second, people who favor tax hikes are not Communists. This country was fighting a cold war against Communists since ‘45 through ’89 (at least), and for most of that people, marginal rates were well above current levels. The call to bring them merely back to Clinton levels hardly makes such an advocate a Communist. Third, the quickest way to limit our country‘s options is to pretend that tax cuts don’t need to be paid for, since our creditors will put the screws to our country with impunity (and pleasure, in the case of the Chinese). So the clarion calls to get serious about the deficit–which the GOP has failed repeatedly to do–is actually a call made by folks who care deeply about how much freedom your daughter actually enjoys over her lifetime.

      Report Post »  
  • Buckaroo
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:44pm

    The nobel econ. prize is actually worth LESS than the peace prize until they take it away from this piece of offal …

    Report Post »  
  • Jimmers46
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:42pm

    At least the Commies are out of the closet now, The lines are drawn plain and simple. It’s them or us! Remember in November and drink that Sweet Liber-tea!!! Change you can actually believe in!!!

    Report Post »  
    • unionrockstar
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:51pm

      Correct;
      Just as others have done before them — now communist are welcomed with open arms.
      I know absolutly nothing about political economical strategy but I would suspect that this type of thinking would strip the desire to succeed (monetarly that is) from our visionaries who are willing to risk failure to possibly achieve wealth. I’m probably old fashion but the America I grew up in allowed anyone to feel that they deserve to spend their money anyway they see fit.

      Report Post »  
    • thegr8restoration
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 1:28am

      Hey UNIONROCKSTAR don’t degrade your knowledge of economics, if you can ballence your checkbook (and I beleive you can) you already know more about economics than our president.

      Report Post »  
  • poverty.sucks
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:41pm

    Communist attempt to suggest thou shall not succeed. Socialist desire a safe place for sinners.

    Report Post » poverty.sucks  
  • 2
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:39pm

    I would like to kick Paul right in the Beanbag.

    Like a 64 yard fieldgoal. IT’S GOOD! WoW MoM

    Report Post »  
    • Punky
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:00pm

      Well, even if you don’t actually hit the bean bag, you should still get a trophy because we are all equal.

      Report Post »  
  • grimmy
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:37pm

    The more of this crap i hear, im reminded of what an old Korean/Vietnam war vet once told me, “Just kill em all, and let God sort em out”. Though this statement was in refference to the “commies”, it still applies today it seems…..

    Report Post »  
  • 2
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:36pm

    It’s Socialism and when you run the Rich out or take all their money you have nothing.

    That’s the problem with Socialism. Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.

    Our Goverment produces NOTHING but Welfair Whores.

    Report Post »  
    • unionrockstar
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:34pm

      Maybe we should start this policy (of putting all over 100 million in a pool for the government to distribute) with politicians. What’cha think — Clintons, Gore, George Soras or any of the group that says —————Do what I say—–not what I do.
      I will never have that problem personally but if I did. I certainly wouldn’t put it in a pool for the corrupt among us to spend just as they have spent my Social Security.

      Report Post »  
  • Jimmers46
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:34pm

    How can a mans inteligence be so far removed from his intellect? Liberals never fail to astound me !

    Report Post »  
  • w4jle
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:32pm

    Obama gonna make my house payment and fill my gas tank and now Bill Gates gonna send me a lot of his ill gotten gains. Where do I sign up for SEIU? What a country (Note the Borat accent).
    You have I want! Utopia is here and I know that none of my brother or sister socialists would ever have more than me. Universal everything and all I have to do is denounce Glenn Beck? Besides I can do away with that pesky garbage service bill, I will simply throw all the trash out the car window on the way to pick up my government cheese. /democrat mode off

    Report Post » w4jle  
  • missy8s
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:32pm

    Krugman should be declared insane and institutionalized permanently…

    Report Post » missy8s  
  • RobertCA
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:32pm

    I once worked for a poor guy & it was called Unemployment checks .
    But when I work for a rich person it’s called Earnings .
    Yes my Boss is rich but when I couldn’t afford my monthly CapiltalOne payments for my well needed car , I approached him & he payed off the remaining balance & now I owe my Boss that money with no interest fees & no time limit , see how mean & greedy my Rich Boss is you stupid socialist communists .

    Report Post » Robert-CA  
    • Punky
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:51pm

      Roberta, LMAO! “I once worked for a poor guy and it was called unemployment checks.” Good one. Awesome point about your boss. The MSM doesn’t tell enough of those stories (Although, CBS has ‘Undercover Boss’ so I give them some credit). I used to work for a company run by *gasp* a Jewish man! As it so happened, we had excellent benefits, excellent retirement plan, excellent and competetive wages, and whenever it was able, the company donated to local charities. AND, get ready for this – he was a millionaire!

      I’m watching FOX6 local news right now. They just interviewed an 18 year old who registered to vote. When asked why he was voting, he said he went through all the trouble of registering and thought he should be a part of this ‘democracy’. Poor school kids don’t even know the difference between Republic and Democracy. I didn’t until I left college! And I mean, AFTER I left college. Talk about sad. The name of the game of the day is CONFUSION. Which happens to be the definition of Babylon, and what was it our old man said? ‘Come out of her my people’. Come to think of it, I can‘t think of a better word than ’confusion’ for that One Nation so called rally on Saturday. If we let them keep up with this charade then a few years from now it‘ll be called the ’One World‘ rally and they’ll be shaking their fists demanding we give up whatever last shed of freedom and choice this nation has left…

      Even if We the People do manage to clean House this November, we still have the bank to deal with and the Fed won’t give up without a h-e-double-hockey-sticks of a fight. Even if our government actually represents us, we won’t have actual control over our lives until we control the money, and right now (and for quite a while now), we haven’t. Really – Why is a private organization presiding over the finiancial affairs of this country? Is that necessary? And what connections do the people that sit on the private board of directors at the Federal Reserve have with the Bank of England, the IMO, the WTF, etc.? I can‘t tell if I’ve gone off topic or if I keep making the same point over and over in a rant. Regardless, I’ll cut it short here. After I say Cheers! to all of you trying to change the direction of this otherwise will be trainwreck of a nation.

      Report Post »  
  • Jimmers46
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:31pm

    Millionaires I will work cheap!

    Report Post »  
  • Jimmers46
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:28pm

    What kind of dugs is this idiot on? Eisenhowerr a Socialist? Did I miss something here?

    Report Post »  
    • iamhungry
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:32pm

      @Jimmers. That’s exactly his point. Eisenhower isnt considered a socialist but he was president when the top tax rate was 91%. If Eisenhower was around today then conservatives would label him socialist for that policy.

      Report Post »  
    • thegr8restoration
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 1:15am

      I’m not sure but that tax bracket may have been a new deal leftover. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • iamhungry
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 6:19am

      @gr8Restoration. I believe you are correct. He didn’t attempt to end any of the New Deal policies, including the tax rates. He expanded Social Security. He created the Dept for Health, Education and Welfare. He extended benefits to 10 million workers and he used a massive federal infrastructure program to build highways across America. By today’s Tea Party standards he would be called a Socialist.

      Report Post »  
  • ILOVEGLENNBECK
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:27pm

    It’s so easy to spend other peoples money, they won’t know what to do with that second hundred million anyway.

    Report Post » ILOVEGLENNBECK  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:12pm

      @Paul Krugman, my labor has purpose and meaning, DO NOT devalue my efforts.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
  • BoiseBaked
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:27pm

    I wished th clown would stop calling himself a economist and admit to what he really is – a community activist.

    Report Post »  
  • Plightman
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:26pm

    Is there any word but “wow” to describe what you just heard?

    Report Post »  
  • american1st
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:25pm

    do these people think multimillionaires keep their money in vaults with big money filled swimming pools like scrooge mcduck?
    those dollars are invested! in businesses and stocks and bonds and land and commodity’s, the money doesn’t just sit their dead and do nothing, it generates value and moves the economy

    Report Post » american1st  
    • HEARDENOUGHCRAP
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:50pm

      “That money doesn’t just sit there dead and do nothing”.

      Very true….but these socialist/communist pigs can’t imagine anyone doing something OTHER than they would do. They “sit there dead and do nothing”. Why would someone else do differently?

      Report Post »  
    • Marine4ever
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:53pm

      It won‘t be moving anywhere to generate wealth if the Government get’s there mitts on it.

      Report Post » Marine4ever  
    • abc
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:44pm

      If that money represents a tax rate rebate to the wealthiest Americans, then it means that that elite group is not paying its fair share. You judge your taxes on the basis of RATES not dollars. And the richest Americans pay a lower rate. This discussion about whether government or private industry uses capital better is silly. We already know the answer: the private sector is more efficient with capital. But that doesn’t mean that we can set tax rates on that basis. Your discussion is beside the point. The real issue is this: 1) what is the right tax rate for wealthiest Americans? (hint, hint: it should be higher than for middle income Americans), 2) what to do with a tax rate that isn’t high enough to cover current spending levels? (hint, hint: if you cannot find $1T in spending cuts per year, as McConnell, Cantor, Boehner and Ryan have not, then you’d better answer with: “raise it.”), and 3) at what point do you bite the bullet and address the structural deficit? (during a recession, after a recession, when your creditors are downgrading your country to junk, or never?). Those would be more intelligent questions to ask and answer, in my humble opinion.

       
  • MCGIRV
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:23pm

    That mans a commie idiot!

    Report Post » MCGIRV  
    • rocktruth
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:33am

      Yes, a very educated idiot. The scary thing is that many people believe him and infect others with the same idea’s. It’s a disease.

      Report Post » rocktruth  
  • Claude
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:22pm

    Once the gauntlet was thrown down by Mr. Beck, be truthful and lets debate where we want to go as a nation and people, the Marxist socialist wealth redistributors have come out of the closet. Now this is an honest look at someone that believes everybody ought to desire the same levels of success and that no one should have more than “X”, why, because they say so. Who the hell are they? He’s not the boss of me.

    Report Post » Claude  
    • abc
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:23pm

      Calling for progressive tax systems doesn’t not a Marxist make. You cannot even frame the debate, so how do you expect to win it?

      Report Post »  
  • Ironmaan
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:20pm

    Krugman is a fool. Just another academic that has never produced anything of value and so he seethes with jealousy at those who do. He can’t create wealth and so he advocates to confiscate it. I personally have never worked for a poor person, and for krugman to say millionaires don’t benefit society to me is just silly.

    Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:24pm

      Wow, I‘m a progressive and I’m not sure even I agree with him on this! http://wp.me/pYLB7-av

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:31pm

      Paul Krugman, answer this question: Who is your moral authority to tell me how I should live my life?

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • Post-Progressive American
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:02am

      Those who have never produced anything of value do not understand the value of production.

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • wingedwolf
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:27am

      What I don’t understand is where these demolibersocialcommies think the world gets the money to make it go around? And if they don’t think the wealthy do anything good with their money, explain Carnegie-Mellon University, or Rockefeller Center, or the over 700,000 foundations providing college scholarships, I really could go on and on but I won’t, there are literally hundreds of thousands of foundations and charities set up and funded by the wealthy, names we use every single day of our lives and don’t know who they are, or were, who gave an incalculable amount of money for good work to be done in their lifetime and continue after their deaths. These damnable commie freaks have been raised and taught by our public school system that they should have everything they want or need and should not be expected to work for any of it. Thank you public revisionist history teaching schools. BTW…White people were here AS SLAVES 200 years before the first Blacks ever saw this country. By the time the first Black slaves came here, the land had ALREADY been cleared and the toens and plantations built by WHITE SLAVES, brought here from Ireland and the UK. Please read and pass this around: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/they-were-slaves.pdf

      Report Post » wingedwolf  
    • abc
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:22pm

      Krugman is the best economist of his generation. He didn’t advocate a 91% marginal tax rate on everyone making more than $1M per year (320K Americans in this category), but a much smaller group of people who are making hundreds of millions in very harmful ways (e.g., i-bankers and hedge fund managers that caused the collapse of Wall Street and Main Street with terribly dangerous derivative products. That is the point that you missed, and the very many economics-ignorant bloggers on this site.

      Report Post »  
  • gobucks1
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:17pm

    Its appropiate that he is holded the middle finger up for half the video!

    Report Post » gobucks1  
  • msctex
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:17pm

    Ok, let’s say this happens, just to try and think like a crazy person for a moment. A 91% tax rate would cause any sane person to put their money in the bank in a non-interest bearing capacity, and wait until sane people are again in charge. There would thus be nothing to gain, because there would be nothing to tax. So the idea this silly, as dangerous as he is allowed to be man is actually putting forth, is the confiscation of principal, because he knows he will never in a million years do anything useful enough to be subject to the results of his own jealousy and avarice.

    They do not understand where money comes from, how ideas generate money and sustain an economy, and that subsequent reinvestment provides impetus. They just want to TAKE.

    Report Post »  
    • bigbud
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:05pm

      Right on Tex, In crudeman’s statment he said,in Ensenouer’s(sp) adminstration the had a tax rate of 91% and no one was in it ….. well yea!!!! The wealthy always find some way of getting around or,,,or ,,,not particitapating.
      Can some one plese tell me $250,000, or 200,000 ro what ever , is that gross or net?

       
    • SATX 19
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:38pm

      You got that right, bro. Hypothetically speaking, if you have $100,000,000 lying around and if you spend it buying goods made in America – that’s $$ into the economy. If you spend it buying stuff at local stores/online/etc – that’s $$ into the economy. If you spend it, HEAVEN FORBID, employing Americans that’s still $$ into the economy BUT not only would you lose $91,000,000 to Uncle Obama (cuz you’re a capitalist pig), you have to pay employee taxes.
      So the better to keep the $$ in the bank and not in Obama’s economy. Wait until reasonable heads are elected.
      COME ON NOVEMBER!!!

      Report Post » SATX 19  
  • Annie Fields
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:15pm

    I never worked for a poor guy.

    Report Post » Annie Fields  
    • Rubicon
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:45pm

      @Annie Fields hahahahahah, that’s a good one. Gotta remember that one, will defenitely use that in the future. Thanks Annie.

      Report Post »  
    • HEARDENOUGHCRAP
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:46pm

      The phrase, as I first heard it was: No one ever got a job from a poor man. How ever it is said, it’s the honest truth….and before someone bemones the new jobs from the government…look at how FAT that cat is……on OUR dime!!!!!!!! Can’t wait to deflate him in November!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Marine4ever
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:50pm

      Krugman may be worried about his job. The NY Times may go under without a bailout. That would be poetic justice.

      Report Post » Marine4ever  
    • douglove
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:03pm

      Seven words that describe precisely what is wrong with left wing socialists. Great job Annie!

      Report Post » douglove  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:14pm

    hes got more than me not fair………………….socialism is for the lazy

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • Punky
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:52pm

      As a child growing up, whenever I would spout my favorite phrase, “That’s not fair!“ my mom told me ”Life’s not fair.” I don’t think anyone ever let the progressives in on the secret…

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:33pm

      You got that right PUNKY!

      Report Post »  
    • Psychosis
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:57pm

      I think anyone who makes the statement that the rich didnt earn their money and that they dont do good for society should have their assets taxed 91 % freakin libs and progressives always with their freakin hand out …………………i say we end this …………….Im gonna be first in line in NOVEMBER

      Report Post » Psychosis  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:49pm

      Taking from the Rich is Krugman’s middle name. Paul Robin Krugman.

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • heavyduty
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:54pm

      Well I watched the clip and have come to the conclusion that if the Democrats wants the tax rate at 91%. Then by all means we should oblige them. I say we should tax all Democrats 91%. Then maybe they will be happy. I can just see it now that the UNIONS would be hollering big time. Besides I wonder how many Democrats would vote for their Democratic leaders then!

      Report Post »  
    • cj51
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 10:37pm

      First they go for the people making a million and then they go after the people making 250,000 than they come after the rest of us….It is nonsense, if you earned it….it is yours..you shouldnt be penalized for working for your money…if this is what it comes to than there is no incentive to work.

      Report Post »  
    • AngryTexanFromAmarillo
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 11:26am

      My mom always told me if I said “that’s not fair” she would say you‘re right that’s not the fair, the fair only comes once a year, and if you save your money now you can ride the rides, while I eat a corn dog.

      Report Post » AngryTexanFromAmarillo  
  • Rubicon
    Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:13pm

    Who is he sticking his finger at, the socialist audience? What a communist!!!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 7:36pm

      Hmm Yum, where has that finger been?

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • FreedomOfSpeech
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:04pm

      People who make that kind of money have often devoted every waking hour of their lives to building a business for years. A 40-hour work week for someone who is building a company is unheard of. Multiply that by two or three and then multiply that by years. No holidays, no days off. Even when they do get to “go on holiday” they spend most of it working. Ever notice how many times the FedEx guy comes to that guy’s Southampton place every day? Seriously, what if we all dreamed big and what if we all fought, learned, sold, marketed, built, etc. instead of asking for more government protection? We would be what we once were and what China is going to be. So many useless, lazy, overfed, coddled bufoons in this country now. Get off your ass and work your balls off UNTIL. That’s right, do it UNTIL. It’s gonna take more than 40 hours a week and you might not get 8 hours of sleep every night. You might have to delay having a family. You might not be able to go out drinking with your friends. But you’ll build a business. And once you have, you won’t want to give 91% of what you make to the lazy bastard who refuses to do what you did to make it.

      FreedomOfSpeech  
    • timeisnow
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 8:45pm

      Not that I care about the Wealthy, but its not anyones business how much money they should be paying in taxes. If Krugman, Obama think that they should be taxed at a higher rate to keep the Government a float, what they both should be doing is cutting spending and stop growing government and benefits that we cant afford and borrowing it from China

      Report Post »  
    • longhorn mama
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:05pm

      @Freedomofspeech. While I agree with a lot of what you say, I completely disagree that I abandoned my career as an attorney to be a stay-at-home mother to my four beautiful, bright children because I am lazy. On the other hand, my entrepreneurial husband easily works the hours you describe as a self-employed physician. And, I KNOW he puts in more hours than our president.

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomOfSpeech
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:31pm

      @Longhorn I’m not calling you lazy. You are working as a team with your husband. If you had decided to be a stay at home mom while collecting welfare, I would be calling you lazy. What I was trying to say is that, in general, people who make more than 100 million dollars have given their blood, sweat and tears to their business and sacrificed things that the average person in our country can only imagine. Just look at the typical job in America where someone works from 9-6 p.m. with an hour for lunch and breaks for coffee. Then they go home and watch sitcoms for three hours, eat an enormous plate of food and go to bed. The guy who built a company to a level that brings him $100 million is not living like that. Even when he’s not “working” he’s thinking about that business. Most people who are complaining about not getting their “fair share” would not be willing to approach the level of commitment and sacrifice that someone building a business has to live with.

      It’s the same thing with that law firm job you left. While many might bemoan a 50-year-old partner making a million bucks or more in salary, few would be willing to sacrifice what that person had to sacrifice to make it to partner.

      Report Post » FreedomOfSpeech  
    • Large Eagle
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 9:35pm

      Ambition plus laziness = con artist – This is every redistributionist’s nickname – while they look like a hero they scam there percentage off the top of the money movement to the so called pour (buddies, lobbyist and such) and all in poverty end up like our kids – no money – no education. Does the DOE ring a bell? Is it November 2nd yet?

      Report Post »  
    • Compete or Lose
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 10:00pm

      Well……..

      If he got his way, tax revenue would not increase….and at the same time you would significantly increase unemployment–because those people that otherwise would grow their businesses would no longer be motivated to persue growth—why take the risks of doubling your business and the number of employees if you dont get to keep anything???

       
    • beekeeper
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 10:08pm

      When will Democrats announce what maximum per year income should be? Is it $1 Million? $5Million? $10 Million?

      Then I’d like to all those big-mouthed actors and performers explain why the deserve a wavier to earn more!

      John Lennon was a tax exile, IIRC, remember the line “Let me tell you how it will be. It’s one for you 19 for me – ’cause I’m the Tax Man” (from Beatles song “Tax Man”, talking about England’s 95% top income rate)…

      beekeeper  
    • NoName22
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 11:30pm

      Amen FreedomofSpeech.

      I know some people that you speak of. People who came from nothing and now, the word something doesn’t even begin to describe their success. People WHO’S LIFE IS THEIR CAREER.

      And Longhorn Mama, I dig. My mom quit her job to raise her kids, including me. Then, when my mother and father decided to move and buy a nicer house, she went back to work. If you want it, you gotta want to work for it. Amen to both of you.

      Report Post »  
    • sodun
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 11:36pm

      I guess after my first $100M I’ll close my company lay off all my employees and retire. To bad I was right on the verge of a perpetual motion engine…oh well.
      .
      These people are soooo dense!

      Report Post » sodun  
    • TruthTalker
      Posted on October 3, 2010 at 11:51pm

      I know plenty of poor people. Not one of them has ever offerred me a job.

      Report Post »  
    • DaytonConserve
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 12:31am

      In Ohio and many other states, last day to register to be able to vote on November 2nd is today, Monday, October 4th. You know what to do in order to protect liberty.

      Report Post »  
    • adifftake
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 12:34am

      is he trying to say I‘m all f’d up?

      Report Post »  
    • Post-Progressive American
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 4:40am

      First and foremost, this is America and you should be free to do what you want, including accumulating wealth. What you decide to do with that wealth is your business.

      Since the top 1% of earners already pay 37% of the taxes in this country; the top 5% of earners pay 57%…how much of the tax burden is their fair share?

      But here is the deal…what are the ‘good things’ that are not being done with the money? Social welfare, charities, etc? I think they are, at the individual level and not just through taxation and Government programs. And even if a wealthy individual does nothing in the way of charities and Social welfare (which is their prerogative), most do not keep the money under their mattresses. So what other ‘good things’ might result from their wealth?

      Savings: Provides banks with the money required for home loans, car loans and small business loans.
      Investments: Provides money for medium to large business expansion and growth, creating jobs.
      Consumption: Allows the purchase of high-end consumer goods; as more are purchased, prices fall and more products become available to the average wage earner.

      These are just a few of the more obvious benefits of wealth. Of course, we can tax at close to 100% on that second $100M and redistribute…if we spread it out over roughly 1/3rd of the population (100 M people), that would be $1 per person per year. Which do you think will do more for the economy and society?

      Of course, the bigger issue is that when the tax rates get that high, people will stop working and investing and, more importantly, will move their money to a more wealth-friendly location and we lose all the benefits that the wealth could have provided. The end result is LESS government revenues when the tax rates get too high. This effect is best explained in the Laffer Curve:
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

      But of course, we always talk about taxing the evil rich people…but approximately 47% of the people either pay no income taxes or actually get more back than they pay in. It is no wonder that polls show about 50% of Americans believe the tax rate is “about right”…because they pay none. This is American and everyone need to pay their fair share, regardless of income…

      Amendment x
      Taxes on income and capital gains shall be applied equally to all citizens, based on a percentage of total income, regardless of source. No exclusions, exemptions or deductions shall apply. The income tax rate shall be 13% initially, decreasing by 1% every two years to 10%. Thereafter, the income tax rate may be adjusted by Congress, but shall not exceed 10%.

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • Post-Progressive American
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 4:46am

      see also:
      http://politicalsocietyonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/us-debt-the-millionaire-tax-failure-declining-state-revenues/

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • ron the veteran
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 7:04am

      i say we tax you commies at 100% your nothing but leaches on the world. what makes you think your intitled to take what someones earned. my suggestion to you is to read the dictionary and look up stealing. its time to send these losers packin. they dont fit in america. they all need to be sent to a country that more to their liking, like iran where they can be told what to do.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:58am

      Does anyone know where this interview took place or where one can find the full video? Mr. Krugman’s comments are cut off rather abruptly, so the editing is a bit suspicious. If The Blaze wants to be seen as offering legitimate journalism, it needs to cite its sources.

      Report Post »  
    • waiting
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 11:35am

      This and all of the Socialistic ideas are ridiculous. Has everyone forgotten that almost everyone in this country, chose to come to this country for either political, economical, or religious reasons? They saw grass that was greener on this side on the hill. Although I agree, we definately have patches of dead grass and we need to make some major changes, we STILL have people sneaking over our borders and requesting visas for a reason. They want the opportunity.

      Report Post »  
    • SeasonOfChange
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 11:40am

      Wow, this guy is a turd. How can these people, who obviously are not hurting for an income, hate capitalism so much when it provided the very lifestyle he is so richly enjoying?

      Report Post »  
    • Beckofile
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 12:06pm

      All the excuses to tax the rich are the justifications for taxing all. They always say this but what it enables them to do is go after the next group, and the next, and the next. If you think it smart to target the rich then you are just moving yourself to #2 on the list.
      This coming from a guy that adheres to Keynsian economics with the corner stone being, You can spend yourself into prosperity. Wake up you friends and take them to vote unless your friends are progressive then just take them to the union hall and open a bar tab for them.

      Report Post » Beckofile  
    • abc
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 5:19pm

      PostProgressive, the 5% who pay nearly 60% of the taxes also have a tax RATE that is below that paid by the middle class. And the ultra-wealthy that are pulling down income of $100M per year–a very small group–make much of that money through carried interest rules that convert income into capital gains, so they pay a much lower rate on those earnings than the janitor who cleans their office at night. You ask what that top 5% should pay, and I say: a HIGHER rate than middle income Americans. It may not be 91%–a number that Krugman is not advocating, but has pointed out was in place with a right-wing President (Eisenhower) overseeing an economy growing much faster than any since Nixon–but it certainly should be higher than 15%-30%.

      As for the Laffer Curve, the concept is not quantifiable and therefore meaningless as an economic model. I know this because Art Laffer told me this personally when I asked him about it. He meant it as an instructive guide to teach people that economic incentives are dynamic and models should reflect this, but he couldn’t tell me what the high point of the curve looks like, whether it is bell-shaped, or even which side of the curve we are currently on. So please save us the supply side nonsense. When Reagan (actually Carter) started to take rates down, the marginal rates were 70-90%, but we don’t live in that world anymore. We are likely on the other side of the Laffer Curve, which means that we need to increase taxes to optimize tax revenue. Please stop making arguments when you lack the proper knowledge to make them. You damage your credibility and create an environment for bad tax policy.

      Finally, your proposed tax rates are too low to cover the current spending by the government. Warren Buffett pointed out four years ago (post Bush tax cuts) that we have a structural deficit of 10% of GDP that cannot be closed with just spending cuts. You and many other conservatives claim otherwise, but, since you lack Buffett’s profound intelligence, you cannot cite which programs can be cut to prove him wrong. Until you do–and I won’t hold my breath–I’ll continue to ignore your cut-taxes-to-grow-our-way-out-of-this-stagnant-economy mantra. It doesn’t pass the smell test on the most basic level.

      Report Post »  
    • Post-Progressive American
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 6:16pm

      @ABC,

      I realize that the upper income have a lower rate; I contend that most rates are too high, especially on the middle class. The entire tax structure is unfair. Increasing taxes on the wealthy will, at some point, result in decreased revenue…and I think 91% would fall in that category.

      The argument of diminishing returns on increasing taxes is valid and has demonstrated several times in our country’s history. The actual point at which the diminishing returns occurs, and the rate at which they occur, are subject to many outside variables, but the guiding principle is sound.

      Regarding the proposed tax rate, yes, it would require drastic spending reductions…goes without saying. To see any benefit, we must cut spending and pay down the debt. The end goal would be to abolish the Income Tax altogether, but that is unrealistic at this time.

      Limited Federal Government, lower (and fairer) taxes are the way to go.

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • Major Infidel
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:58pm

      Don’t tax the mega rich, put them in charge! Who better to fix our disgusting deficit and curtail the spending?

      Report Post » Major Infidel  
    • Robert W
      Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:44pm

      Why does this imbecil even have a job?

      Report Post »  
    • joe
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:35am

      what are we coming to, when the American dream is now who can we take money from to reach our goals? If we worked hard and took a shot at a business and made it work we dreamed of the rewards for our families and our children’s future. We would probably have folks working for us and they would make a living and raise their families. We would contribute to our church for the building fund and we would give money to charity However the Lyons Share would go to the Government as it always has in the past. Now you want to take more? Who get’s hurt if you do ? The church? The Charity? Those folks who used to work for me and their families? MY KIDS ? NO WAY Enough Is Enough. This has to stop now and we need to get our country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

      Report Post »  
    • ron the veteran
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 12:46pm

      i wonder how his rich boss feels about that little worm? i know if i was his boss hed be collecting unemployment today. because his ass has a job because of some pretty rich people. we need to show commies like him the door. these people dont deserve to be here, america is an idea and a way of thinking that this guy has no clue of. these people must be shown the door.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:44pm

      PostProgressive, why is the current tax rate unfair? Are you comparing us to the past? Then you‘d have to admit that we have the lowest tax rate since the 20’s. Are you comparing us to other developed countries? Then you’d have to admit that the cumulative income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are actually below the OECD average–that is also true when you include corporate taxes and all other taxes, by the way. Or is a lower tax rate always fair? In which case, you’ll have to say what the lower bound is, since guys like Norquist apparently think a 1% tax rate is too high. We shouldn’t be talking about 91% tax rates, but once again theblaze.com is about stupid sideshows rather than intelligent discussions on realistic facts and issues. Bottom line: a return to Clinton tax rates will not hurt the economy, will largely close the structural deficit of 7-10% of GDP and will ensure that we can start addressing the problem of excessive debt, all while not creating the bad incentives of Sweden or Eisenhower-level rates. A 400 bps rise in the tax rate is only termed Communist amongst out-of-the-mainstream right-wingers.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

      The ultra rich pay next to nothing, what we need is less loop holes/no loop holes not higher tax rates. Stop allowing people to setup trust funds/foundations to funnel money into, stop allowing people to go on vacations to Europe and take off their income as a business/foundation expense, stop allowing people to buy season box seats to pro sports and write them off as expense.

      Report Post »  
    • Compete or Lose
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:11pm

      .
      .
      .
      In the interest of more truthfulness than this man sees fit to use,
      the bottom marginal tax rate was 20% on the first $4,000 of taxable income in the 1950s when the top rate was 91%. So everyone had higher rates.

      Important to understand as well that the current bottom rate of 10% will increase by 50% on January 1 to 15%…………..now arent you glad the congress went home without fixing this pending tax increase???

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 8

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love