Krugman Calls for Higher Taxes Than Under Clinton
You knew this was coming.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - might he finally be realizing that our budget deficits can't possibly be solved by just eliminating the Bush tax cuts? - is now calling for marginal rates even higher than when Bill Clinton was in office:
Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?
Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in earnest, not just return them to pre-Bush levels: taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.
But has the "long-run budget outlook...darkened" because of tax receipts or spending?
NewsBusters readers know full-well the answer is the latter.
As I've noted many times in the past, if we had only grown our total expenditures at the rate of inflation since 2007, we would have had a $413 billion deficit in the just-ended fiscal year 2011. This would be even lower in the current year given projections of $2.9 trillion in unified tax receipts.
When you consider that total unified outlays in 2007 - before the Democrats took over Congress! - were $2.7 trillion, and that they rose to a staggering $3.8 trillion in just four years or 41 percent, it's just absurd to blame our fiscal woes on revenues.
But we've grown accustomed to this in the past couple of years, especially from arithmetically-challenged Nobel laureates like Krugman.
Yet readers shouldn't take this proposal by the New York Times economist lightly.
As serious spending cuts continue to be taken, well, unseriously by our lawmakers, and our debt continues to expand at levels threatening additional credit rating cuts, you should be prepared for more calls like this.
This may not happen in an election year when even a leftist like Barack Obama is aware of what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984.
But if the Republicans don't at least take back the Senate while retaining the House next November, 2013 could be the year America experiences the largest tax hikes in its history.
Happy Holidays.
*****A tweet by the MRC's Ed Molchany reminded me of something I wrote in April. If Mr. Krugman wants tax rates at or higher than when Clinton was in office, can we go back to those spending levels, too?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So first Krugman says that in
Submitted by Simplicity101 on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:31am.
So first Krugman says that in order for the economy to improve, the government needs to give money to its people...
But now he's saying that the government needs to take more money from its people, otherwise we're all doomed?
I'm willing to bet Krugman has trouble determining which foot each of his shoes goes on in the morning.
This is why it's usually
Submitted by mattm on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 3:05am.
This is why it's usually pointless to argue with libs. If they're so blind that they can't see their own illogic, how can they possibly see your logic?
Not necessary. Our remaining senses are so heightened,
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 3:22am.
we can smell BS a mile away.
Jer
And possessing an enhanced BS detector would explain---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 4:27am.
why liberals can so easily interpret whatever the hell gibberish it is that their Messiah speaks through his teleprompter..
MD
Whoever smelt it dealt it.
Submitted by mattm on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 3:25pm.
Whoever smelt it dealt it.
First smeller---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:08pm.
is the feller.
MD
Actually, S101, Krugman is quite consistent
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 9:32am.
What he prescribes is wealth redistribution: the government gives money to some people after taking it from others.
What Krugman won't concede is that the Keynesian economic model does not work. He has maintained that the 2009 Stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough; I believe he was calling on something in the order ot $2 trillion.
Same old dog; same old tricks.
This idiot, who the President
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 4:58am.
This idiot, who the President likes, and his ideas is the reason business is wary of the economy. they don't know what crazy thing is next. Business wants a stable environment where they can plan for the future.
The Usual
Submitted by Kleenex on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:53am.
More idiocy from Krugman, nothing to see here folks just move on.
Want to make Paul Krugman VERY uncomfortable? Watch this.
Submitted by sarcasmo on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 7:02am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cFXRFlvE3s
In addition to making Krugman uncomfortable, this video also proves ("NewsBusted," are you listening, I hope???) that is IS possible to make actually-funny jokes about libertarians, even without the aid of a live audience to help determine when bad jokes "bomb."
It's the spending that's killing us.
Consider this an open letter to Paul Krugman
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 7:40am.
Dear Dr. Krugman:
You recently called for taxes to be increased above 2000 levels. At what level will you say "this much, but NO MORE?" Did you ever get out your calculator and run it to determine how much is needed to cover a $2.9 trillion deficit?
If you wish to do it off from marginal tax rates, can I recommend that you take all earnings from every person who made over $150,000 in 2009? The IRS said that the total income declared by this group was $2.4 trillion. And you expect to get $2.9 trillion from these people (the size of the projected 2012 deficit)? I know, you are a genius with math, you will just tax all of these people at 125% of their income! Now WHY didn't I think of that?
If you do that, what will you then tax for the 2013 year, since you have now taken away some of the wealth from these people so they will make less than they did in 2012? And this assumes that you socialists will then be re-elected by the people that have so long voted for and supported your campaigns.
May I remind you of a lady named Margaret Thatcher? She said "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". My quote is slightly different, Dr. Krugman: "Socialists who are economists should give back their unused degree."
Sincerely,
TheHistorian
Dennis Prager
Paul Krugman is...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:04am.
Paul Krugman is inching closer to self-immolation. Oh, how incensed he must be to watch his pleas reach only his limp-wristed choir and no further; how livid he must be that Keynesian Thought--Krugman's whole raison d'etre--has been proven a failure, not only in this country but worldwide. Forced to 'prove' the success of his 'theory,' Krugman is utterly unable to...preferring instead to talk about imaginary scenarios such as space-alien attacks.
Krugman is a faculty-lounge Lib, and what makes him angriest is that he KNOWS we know.
Krugman proves the shallowness of the so-called Nobel Prize.
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:22am.
Technically, there is no 'Nobel' Prize for economics.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
the shallowness of the nobel
Submitted by copakeman on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 10:59am.
the shallowness of the nobel prize was proven again, when o was awarded the nobel for peace. the recipiant for this award was chosen a week after he won the election, before he was inaugurated as our president.
yassar arrafat also won the peace prize and a few other questionalbe folks.
krugman would have a hard time with the answer to this: 1+ 1 = ?.
Math is sinking in
Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:15am.
Even Dr. Krugman is coming to grips with the fact that the existing call to return to the Clinton tax rates will not make a dent in the problem. It is also worth noting that very few people discuss that the spending problem started before president Obama. One only needs to recall that president Bush threatened to veto the last budget proposed by the Democrats in his last year and then we had to live with continuing resolutions until president Obama took office. No one recalls that. President Bush spent a lot but this administration takes the cake big time.
Dr Goebbels
Submitted by Callawyn on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 1:34pm.
Krugman has become the chief propagandist for national socialism. As such, I've taken to referring to him as Dr Goebbels.
The easiest method of debunking his nonsense his to simply compare his current lunatic ravings with the contents of his own textbook.
Krugman.
Submitted by racefish on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:18pm.
Well, if he's so smart he should realize there isn't that much money in the whole economy to make up for the mistake of the last three years.