3 ms·

Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil id

Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil idiots. Can't stand reading the man's columns.

olegk 16y ago
So you think it's great that rich get taxed at 15% and the poor/middle class at roughly 30-40%? I'm pretty sure among you and Krugman, you're a hack.
- sokoloff 16y ago
  A significant portion of the poor are taxed well below 15% on a average basis, with a non-trivial fraction below 0%. I'd be hard-pressed (as would you) to concoct a "poor" person's tax return with an average rate of roughly 30-40%.
hristov 16y ago
Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  While this is a general problem with Krugman, and not a problem specific to this column, people who disagree with higher rates of taxes on the rich would do so for the following reasons: 1) Efficiency concerns: decentralized allocation of capital versus political allocation of capital 2) Business cycle concerns: raising taxes in a recession was one of the things done during the Great Depression, and there's a reason it lasted 12 years. 3) Fairness concerns: The rich already give about half their income to government (depending on the state and the method by which they earn their income). How much is too much? 4) Revenue concerns: the income of the rich is highly volatile, and so is the revenue of a country that depends on heavily progressive taxation. 5) Long term economic growth concerns: Capital is more mobile than ever, and people will prefer to invest in countries with lower taxes, ceteris paribus. 6) The Laffer Curve: it has an inflection point. I'm not saying the anti-taxers are right, but any honest commentator should acknowledge that some arguments exist on the other side. But in Krugman's world, people only disagree with him because of personality flaws (angry, selfish, myopic, stupid, etc.). I can't stand the man's smug self-righteousness which he keeps regardless of how mainstream or controversial his opinion on the topic at hand. The man sold his soul to democratic socialism a long time ago to the point he pretends that no other valid worldview exists. I can't think of a single economics columnist who is more partisan or who treats his opponents with less regard. In particular, this article scans like a college newspaper op-ed. It is a simple Rah Rah piece for his side. It could have been written by a campus Marxist group. "Look at the poor rich folks, struggling to pay for their private schools and limosines". Gosh Mr. Krugman, with such incisive commentary I can see why you got that Nobel. And of course he forgets to mention that most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument that the rich are "angry" is questionable to start with.
  - evgen 16y ago
    Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start, so we will just jump straight to the end: > most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument [...] is questionable to start with. Not even close to correct. Gender, age and state of residence are good proxies for voting patterns, but none is better than wealth/income. The rich, as a class, support republican candidates. The basic rule is that rich states vote Democrat, rich people vote Republican.
    - jacoblyles 16y ago
      >Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start Keep in mind that I am merely stating that an argument exists, an not making it per se. I am questioning Krugman's rhetorical strategy of assuming that no reasonable disagreement exists. The only data I can find puts people making over $125,000 as 46% Democrat and 51% Republican in 2004[1]. Of course, this was before the banner Democratic years of 2006 and 2008 when Barack Obama beat McCain in campaign contributions 3 to 1 among employees of large Wall Street banks. So you're right, it more even than I thought. Rich people probably went Democrat in 2008 and may swing Republican again in what is shaping up to be a huge year for team GOP. [1]Ugly google link:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nd.edu%2F~cwolbrec%2FPartyID.pdf&ei=IeyXTJnHKdDuOaiUvOwM&usg=AFQjCNEzmQ3F8E5-KLgn8hfPpM66lfqJIw&sig2=ssFkh3gYdEKGdKvxzZjUoA http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&s... [2]-http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38... -http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38...
      - evgen 16y ago
        $125K/year may be "rich" in Kansas, but is lower middle class in California. Try breaking the data out on a state-by-state level and the pattern becomes blindingly obvious: those at the top of the per-state income scale vote Republican, regardless of which state they are in. (And the reason Dems picked up all those Wall St. contributions was because Wall St. is not stupid and knew which way the wind was blowing; bankers knew it was better to try to buy a bit of leniency than annoy the people who would be writing the new financial regulations) The authors of the book Red State, Blue State have all the data you need to answer this question, and they helpfully blog various tidbits and state breakdowns on various issues like this.

olegk 16y ago

So you think it's great that rich get taxed at 15% and the poor/middle class at roughly 30-40%? I'm pretty sure among you and Krugman, you're a hack.

sokoloff 16y ago
A significant portion of the poor are taxed well below 15% on a average basis, with a non-trivial fraction below 0%. I'd be hard-pressed (as would you) to concoct a "poor" person's tax return with an average rate of roughly 30-40%.

hristov 16y ago

Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.

jacoblyles 16y ago
While this is a general problem with Krugman, and not a problem specific to this column, people who disagree with higher rates of taxes on the rich would do so for the following reasons: 1) Efficiency concerns: decentralized allocation of capital versus political allocation of capital 2) Business cycle concerns: raising taxes in a recession was one of the things done during the Great Depression, and there's a reason it lasted 12 years. 3) Fairness concerns: The rich already give about half their income to government (depending on the state and the method by which they earn their income). How much is too much? 4) Revenue concerns: the income of the rich is highly volatile, and so is the revenue of a country that depends on heavily progressive taxation. 5) Long term economic growth concerns: Capital is more mobile than ever, and people will prefer to invest in countries with lower taxes, ceteris paribus. 6) The Laffer Curve: it has an inflection point. I'm not saying the anti-taxers are right, but any honest commentator should acknowledge that some arguments exist on the other side. But in Krugman's world, people only disagree with him because of personality flaws (angry, selfish, myopic, stupid, etc.). I can't stand the man's smug self-righteousness which he keeps regardless of how mainstream or controversial his opinion on the topic at hand. The man sold his soul to democratic socialism a long time ago to the point he pretends that no other valid worldview exists. I can't think of a single economics columnist who is more partisan or who treats his opponents with less regard. In particular, this article scans like a college newspaper op-ed. It is a simple Rah Rah piece for his side. It could have been written by a campus Marxist group. "Look at the poor rich folks, struggling to pay for their private schools and limosines". Gosh Mr. Krugman, with such incisive commentary I can see why you got that Nobel. And of course he forgets to mention that most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument that the rich are "angry" is questionable to start with.
- evgen 16y ago
  Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start, so we will just jump straight to the end: > most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument [...] is questionable to start with. Not even close to correct. Gender, age and state of residence are good proxies for voting patterns, but none is better than wealth/income. The rich, as a class, support republican candidates. The basic rule is that rich states vote Democrat, rich people vote Republican.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    >Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start Keep in mind that I am merely stating that an argument exists, an not making it per se. I am questioning Krugman's rhetorical strategy of assuming that no reasonable disagreement exists. The only data I can find puts people making over $125,000 as 46% Democrat and 51% Republican in 2004[1]. Of course, this was before the banner Democratic years of 2006 and 2008 when Barack Obama beat McCain in campaign contributions 3 to 1 among employees of large Wall Street banks. So you're right, it more even than I thought. Rich people probably went Democrat in 2008 and may swing Republican again in what is shaping up to be a huge year for team GOP. [1]Ugly google link:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nd.edu%2F~cwolbrec%2FPartyID.pdf&ei=IeyXTJnHKdDuOaiUvOwM&usg=AFQjCNEzmQ3F8E5-KLgn8hfPpM66lfqJIw&sig2=ssFkh3gYdEKGdKvxzZjUoA http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&s... [2]-http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38... -http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38...
    - evgen 16y ago
      $125K/year may be "rich" in Kansas, but is lower middle class in California. Try breaking the data out on a state-by-state level and the pattern becomes blindingly obvious: those at the top of the per-state income scale vote Republican, regardless of which state they are in. (And the reason Dems picked up all those Wall St. contributions was because Wall St. is not stupid and knew which way the wind was blowing; bankers knew it was better to try to buy a bit of leniency than annoy the people who would be writing the new financial regulations) The authors of the book Red State, Blue State have all the data you need to answer this question, and they helpfully blog various tidbits and state breakdowns on various issues like this.