Krugman: Who’s Very Important? (short answer: Not the super rich.)
What about the argument that we must keep taxes on the rich low lest we remove their incentive to create wealth? The answer is that we have a lot of historical evidence, going all the way back to the 1920s, on the effects of tax increases on the rich, and none of it supports the view that the kinds of tax-rate changes for the rich currently on the table — President Obama’s proposal for a modest rise, Mr. Romney’s call for further cuts — would have any major effect on incentives. Remember when all the usual suspects claimed that the economy would crash when Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993?
Furthermore, if you’re really concerned about the incentive effects of public policy, you should be focused not on the rich but on workers making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, who are often penalized for any gain in income because they end up losing means-tested benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. I’ll have more to say about that in another column. By the way, in 2010, the average annual wage of manicurists — “nails ladies,” in Romney-donor speak — was $21,760.
So, are the very rich V.I.P.? No, they aren’t — at least no more so than other working Americans. And the “common person” will be hurt, not helped, if we end up with government of the 0.01 percent, by the 0.01 percent, for the 0.01 percent.
4 comments:
Obama is very much of the Chicago school of economics... i.e., his economics is singularly Republican.
So we have a choice. With Republican Obama and an ineffective, divided Congress, we can have four more years of the same... tax breaks for the wealthy, as if they really were "job creators," and not even a nod toward Keynesian practices which might alleviate the depression... but we can be reasonably confident of some grudging support for women's rights. Or we can go with Republican Romney and an ineffective, divided Congress... unmitigated tax breaks for the wealthy and an utterly destructive attitude toward women's rights.
I'll vote for what's behind Door #1... but I damned surely will NOT enjoy spending literally the rest of my life watching the money I diligently saved and invested over my working lifetime being transferred to the already obscenely wealthy by a completely nonrepresentative Congress and a wholly indifferent president of one or the other major party. I HATE THEM ALL!
I hear you. Our system is broken. So do you want to die quickly (Republicans) or slowly (Democrats)? Slowly... because we might just think of something to fix things before it happens.
I wonder where the breaking point is (if there is one) before we have a revolution....
Ironically, the most steadfastly nonviolent opposition, Occupy, has already received treatment by municipal governments (actually, police) as if it were a revolution. In some cities, the cops seem thrilled to be able to dress up like military and crack "hippies'" heads and almost literally drown them in pepper spray... even when the not-really-hippies are going to extremes to avoid provocation.
And the general public doesn't seem to give a good damn. I guess they see it all on TV and literally say "goddam hippies" and forget about it.
Which makes me wonder: are we already past the stage of revolution, all the way to "1984"?
(Google commenting is fucking me over again. Grrrr...)
I keep hoping Occupy will resurrect itself and take to the streets again. But I can't urge them on if I'm not willing to join them...
And when you've had Blackwater/ Xe/ Academi training your local police forces, they will be eager to try out their cool new stuff on helpless and hapless protesters.
Post a Comment