The Disingenuity of Abusing the Statistics
So, I really shouldn't have to say anything about how non-objective Paul Krugman is in his "economic analysis", but periodically he will spew something so egregiously absurd that it inspires a response. Case in point: The Economics of Soaking the Rich.
Now, I'm not going to go into too much depth; hopefully anyone reading this blog will be intelligent enough to already be aware of how much of a biased shill Krugman is. But this piece is just obnoxiously misleading enough to really need a call out.
To wit, a few points which Krugman fails to mention entirely (and indeed, might be too stupid to even comprehend, in fairness):
Effective Tax Rate
While the nominal tax rates have varied widely, that only tells half the story; the effective (real) tax rates are a combination of nominal rates and allowed deductions. When the nominal rates were high (eg: in the 70's), there were many more deductions, such that the "wealthy" paid basically the same effective rates as they do today. It's a load of crap to insinuate that the economy did better when the government taxed more; if anything, the government taxed less when nominal rates were higher. In fact, that was part of the nominal impetus for simplifying the tax code in the 80's (to make the rich pay a more fair share, by removing the loopholes).
Fairness in Taxation
I suppose it goes without saying, but there's an implicit underlying argument in liberal doctrine that progressive tax rates are more "fair" than flat tax rates, because... the "rich" deserve to have more earned income stolen? I honestly don't know the moral basis or justification for this. I can see the argument for wealth redistribution, but that would imply higher taxation on assets not income, which is not what PK is advocating. So there's that whole "look over here, not over there" part of the argument.
Contradiction with his Fundamental Economic Theory
Perhaps the most damning indictment of PK's argument is that he's always advocated the government printing money as the solution to all problems (wealth redistribution, recessions, etc.), yet there's this direct quote in this op-ed: "when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise." WTF? Since when is gathering revenue to balance spending even on the radar of any liberal, much less the literal poster-child for unbounded government deficit spending? It's like every economic principle went straight onto the dumpster fire the moment an opportunity to promote the socialist agenda came up.
Paul Krugman is one of the worst kinds of people in America: someone who uses his education and background to give nominal legitimacy to partisan political garbage. He and his kind are a cancer on the country.
Now, I'm not going to go into too much depth; hopefully anyone reading this blog will be intelligent enough to already be aware of how much of a biased shill Krugman is. But this piece is just obnoxiously misleading enough to really need a call out.
To wit, a few points which Krugman fails to mention entirely (and indeed, might be too stupid to even comprehend, in fairness):
Effective Tax Rate
While the nominal tax rates have varied widely, that only tells half the story; the effective (real) tax rates are a combination of nominal rates and allowed deductions. When the nominal rates were high (eg: in the 70's), there were many more deductions, such that the "wealthy" paid basically the same effective rates as they do today. It's a load of crap to insinuate that the economy did better when the government taxed more; if anything, the government taxed less when nominal rates were higher. In fact, that was part of the nominal impetus for simplifying the tax code in the 80's (to make the rich pay a more fair share, by removing the loopholes).
Fairness in Taxation
I suppose it goes without saying, but there's an implicit underlying argument in liberal doctrine that progressive tax rates are more "fair" than flat tax rates, because... the "rich" deserve to have more earned income stolen? I honestly don't know the moral basis or justification for this. I can see the argument for wealth redistribution, but that would imply higher taxation on assets not income, which is not what PK is advocating. So there's that whole "look over here, not over there" part of the argument.
Contradiction with his Fundamental Economic Theory
Perhaps the most damning indictment of PK's argument is that he's always advocated the government printing money as the solution to all problems (wealth redistribution, recessions, etc.), yet there's this direct quote in this op-ed: "when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise." WTF? Since when is gathering revenue to balance spending even on the radar of any liberal, much less the literal poster-child for unbounded government deficit spending? It's like every economic principle went straight onto the dumpster fire the moment an opportunity to promote the socialist agenda came up.
Paul Krugman is one of the worst kinds of people in America: someone who uses his education and background to give nominal legitimacy to partisan political garbage. He and his kind are a cancer on the country.
Comments
Post a Comment