Krugman: Obama and the One Percent

[ProSense]

Obama and the One Percent

Another week, another outburst by a one-percenter comparing progressive taxation to Nazi atrocities. I particularly liked the end:

Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now?

<...>

You do wonder why the WSJ published this screed. Do billionaires have the right to get their views aired, regardless? Did the Journal think that it was doing a public service by letting the rest of us see the loose screws in this guy’s head? Or — what I suspect, to be frank — did the relevant editors actually think he was making a useful point?

Anyway, thinking about this sort of thing makes me realize that there’s a danger, especially for progressives, of confusing the proposition that Obama’s billionaire haters are stark raving mad — which is true — with the proposition that Obama has done nothing that hurts the plutocrats’ interests, which is false. Actually, Obama has been tougher on the one percent than most progressives give him credit for.

Start with taxes. The Bush tax cuts haven’t gone completely away, but at the very high end they have been pretty much reversed; plus there are additional high-end taxes associated with Obamacare. The result is that taxes on wealthy Americans have basically been rolled back to pre-Reagan levels:



- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/obama-and-the-one-percent

[Herself]

1. tax rates apply to adjusted dollars. The tax loop holes greatly impact actual taxed dollars

And that is why secretaries pay more in taxes than billionaires.

The special rights belong to those that bought them, relatively cheaply.

The rest of us are prodded every day to be angry, and directed toward those they prefer you take it out on. EACH other...

[ProSense]

2. Welcome to DU. I was just

"tax rates apply to adjusted dollars. The tax loop holes greatly impact actual taxed dollars"

...about to post this. The new heatlh care law raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

[stevenleser]

3. Uh oh, I suspect Krugman is now going to get thrown under the bus for praising Obama.

Wait for it, 5..4..3..2..1..

[hfojvt]

5. it isn't about "praising Obama"

it's about lying and saying that permanent tax cuts of $1.3 trillion for the richest 5% of Americans will reduce inequality.

He deserves to get thrown under the bus.

[ProSense]

8. What the hell are you talking about?

"it's about lying and saying that permanent tax cuts of $1.3 trillion for the richest 5% of Americans will reduce inequality. "

Where does Krugman mention the "richest 5%"?

You're accusing him of "lying" when your knee-jerk ridiculous comments are attributing claims to him he did not make. His post was specifically about the top one percent.

Also, you've been posting that BS about the "permanent tax cuts of $1.3 trillion" because you obviously don't understand the tax code.

Your claim is basically that because taxes went down on people making under $50,000, the rich also gets a tax cut. It makes no fucking sense. It makes even less sense considering the new taxes on investment income.

[hfojvt]

12. failing to mention the richest 5% IS the lie

the REAL discussion is about "inequality".

To talk about the 1% avoids a huge part of that issue. Again, Krugman should know better.

The top 10% takes almost 50% of the pie. The top 1% takes 20% and the top 9% takes 30%.

If Obama, with Krugman's cheering, enacts policies which reduce the top 1% to 10% while maintaining the top 10% at 50% that does nothing for the bottom 90%.

But if you, Krugman, and Obama want to distract us with the top 1% as a way to screw the bottom 80%, then how dare I get in the way of "progress"?

And to continue to assert that "I don't understand the tax code" because I don't like tax cuts for the rich, is just pure ad hominem.

[ProSense]

13. Your comment is pure nonsense. n/t

[hfojvt]

36. and your snark is a boojum*

put that in your cottleston pie**


* "Doorways in the Sand" by Roger Zelazny

** "Winnie the Pooh" '... ask me a riddle and I will reply, 'Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie'.


You don't understand, or care to understand.

Life goes on, and I see the world spinning around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Snarks, and boojums, come from Lewis Carroll's 'The Hunting of the Snark'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_of_the_Snark

Notice the Banker looks rather like Karl Rove:

[hfojvt]

79. that's where Zelazny (and Speicus) got it

but the line that Zelazny had Speicus say to Fred in "Doorways in the Sand" was "Our snark is a boojum."

Which made Fred realize he was being stalked by a "Cheshire Cat".

[geek tragedy]

27. So you're calling Occupy Wall Street liars for emphasizing on the top 1%.

Brilliant, someone who thinks that Occupy Wall Street was too rightwing to be considered acceptable on the issue of income inequality.

[hfojvt]

35. no, I call them fools

they would only be liars, if they were doing so to defend Obama, and if they had the education in economics to know better.

Here's an example of how foolish they are.

The Bush tax cuts - a tax cut for the 99%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
Yes, it is true. 68% of the Bush tax cuts went to the 99%. $1.4 trillion out of the $2.1 trillion total. What a victory that was for the 99%!!! Truly, WE, the 99%, got far more of the tax cut than the 1%.

Never mind, of course, that the top 20% got $1.5 trillion and the bottom 60% only got $313 billion. No, no, no, it is ALL about the top 1%. Everybody else is working class.

[geek tragedy]

48. so, anyone who doesn't declare class war on the upper middle class is a fraud in your estimation nt

[geek tragedy]

26. I'm sure Professor Krugman will be heartbroken to learn that hardcore

Obamahaters do not approve of his work.

[hfojvt]

37. more ad hominem

hardcore Obama haters are made, not born.

I was a defender of Obama until he crossed my Rubicon. He extended the Bush tax cuts. Then he told a bunch of lies about his extension. Then he made 85% of them permanent and told a bunch of lies about that. Obama pretends to care about inequality, yet has spent five years enacting policies and dishonestly promoting those policies which INCREASE the inequality.

But hey, no problem. I should love it when politicians lie to me, and I should embrace the inequality.

[geek tragedy]

49. you invented your own personal rubicon and pretended that Obama promised

you personally that your personal Rubicon would not be crossed.

In reality, Obama never promised to undo all of the Bush tax cuts, or to declare class warfare against the upper middle class.

garden variety ODS.

[hfojvt]

72. I love it when Obama supporters

agree with Bush supporters.

Classic ODS - Obama defense syndrome.

Suddenly it is "class warfare" to be against policies that favor the top 20% over the bottom 60%.

The bottom line is - Obama did not HAVE to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent - he CHOSE to.

He also did not have to tell a bunch of lies about it either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/fiscal-cliff-obama_n_2398544.html

Obama: "An essential premise of my campaign was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy, at the expense of working, middle class Americans...."

Obama (continuing):Tonight, we have done that (by passing ATRA).

Except that an honest assessment of what ATRA does, is that it took the Bush tax cuts, which were too skewed to the rich, and it made most of them permanent. And the people who get most of the benefits by making that law, which Obama both negotiated, praised, and signed - the rich.

So he took tax breaks for the rich which were set to expire and instead of letting that happen, he made most of them permanent.

Yes it is my Rubicon, and I don't really care what Obama promised. Back when I was trying to defend him against daily attacks here, his detractors would say "you will defend him no matter what he does." I said, no, I have a line in the sand, and if he crosses it, then I am done with him.

Now was this Rubicon entirely my invention, or did I perhaps in 2011 get a bunch of letters from Michelle Obama, with picture postcards of the Obama family, and the letters said "Barack has spent every day, fighting for YOU and we need you to send money so we can keep fighting." (a paraphrase, not a quote, it's not like I kept the letters).

Maybe that wasn't a lie. Maybe Michelle just figured that, as a former donor, I was also a member of the top 20%, and thus Obama really was fighting for me.

[geek tragedy]

73. you're the only one baying about how we need to stick it to teachers.

You see, a household of two teachers in the US would be in the top 20%.

80th percentile in income for US households is right around $100K.

Average teacher salary is over $50K, except for very low cost of living states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/15/how-much-teachers-get-paid-state-by-state/

Also, you ignore the institution known as Congress's role in all of this.

I know you were pining for EVERYONE's taxes to go up, but boo fucking hoo. You didn't get your pony.

P.S. those who make snide remarks about "Obama supporters" only succeed at declaring themselves leftwing Teabaggers.

[hfojvt]

77. stick it to teachers?

Oh good grief.

Here's the thing. If tax cuts expire for people making over $100,000 a year, then yes, people who make $101,000 a year or even $100,001 will pay morre in taxes.

With a 3% tax increase (the average impact of the Bush tax cuts), the first couple will pay an extra $30 and the second couple will pay an extra 3 cents.

Oh, those poor teachers. I really stuck it to them, didn't I? Unlike Obama.

In 2010, he allowed the Making Work Pay credit to expire and replaced it with the Accursed Payroll Tax cut. In 2010, my wage income was $13,130.28. So the payroll tax cut for somebody like me was $262.60 minus the $400 MWP credit that went away. And my taxes went up by $137.40. Meanwhile that $100,000 couple got a payroll tax cut of $2,000.

Tax increases for the working poor. Check
Tax cuts for people with much higher incomes. Check
A Democratic President who increases inequality. Outrageous.

p.s. And what do people who make snide remarks about "Obama haters" declare themselves to be? DINOs? PINOs? Who drew "first blood" when it came to snide remarks? "Class warfare" happens to be a standard Republican talking point against progressive policies, and you decided it was appropriate to use against me.

[geek tragedy]

81. Say, whose idea was the "making work pay" credit?

On a related note, to what extent do you think having REPUBLICANS controlling the House played in some of these outcomes?

Have you crunched the math on how much revenue would be raised by taxing an additional 3% of the money above $100K for housholds?

Would you have preferred for your taxes to go up even more if that meant taxing the upper middle class as well? Because there was no way your taxes were going to stay flat while theirs went up.

I'm not the one who made a pony out of raising taxes on the upper middle class and then blamed Obama for not giving me my pony.

[hfojvt]

88. back to those ponies, eh?

Whose idea was the Making work pay credit.

It was "campaign Obama".

Then it was abandoned by "President Obama"

A pony? Again, it was Obama who said THIS, as recently as 2 January 2013 Obama: "An essential premise of my campaign was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy, at the expense of working, middle class Americans...."


And including the TOP 20% in the upper MIDDLE class is just more "help the rich" bullsh*t.

It should be by quintiles

Poor - bottom 20%
middle class - middle 60%
rich - top 20%
super-rich - top 5%
ultra-rich - top 1%
super-duper rich - top 0.1%

But the "rich" (as I define it) just love to look up and say "I am not rich, look at those people way up there".

But here, let's let campaign Obama explain how the "top 6% is NOT part of the middle class" http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

Would I have preferred that my taxes went up?

Actually yes. When I filed my taxes in 2010, I didn't claim my refund. I was prepared to not claim refunds for as long as my man Obama was President. Instead of a refund, just keep rolling it over on line 75 of the 1040.

But that was when I still had hope. Hope that Obama would "change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy, at the expense of working, middle class Americans...." Something HE, himself, called "an essential premise of my campaign".

And Republicans controlling the House? That never helps.

But you may have forgotten. Obama did NOT fight the Republican House and lose. Instead he did not even bother to fight.

[geek tragedy]

89. Heh, classic ODS.

Whose idea was the Making work pay credit.

It was "campaign Obama".

Then it was abandoned by "President Obama"

Reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit

The Making Work Pay Tax Credit was a tax credit allowed by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.[1] It was authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The credit was given at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income up to a maximum of $400 for individuals or $800 for married taxpayers. Making Work Pay could be claimed by single filers making between $8,100 per year and $95,000 per year. Joint filers in the range of $8,100 and $190,000 could claim it annually. Typically employers reduced withholding to provide an increase in take-home pay without any effort required from taxpayers. If the taxpayer had multiple jobs or was self-employed, they needed to adjust withholding. However, if the worker had multiple jobs or was unemployed, they had the option to receive the credit via lump sum (all $400 to $800 at once) after tax day.

The key thought behind the Making Work Pay tax credit was to stimulate consumer spending. In fact, the credit was the key policy in President Barack Obama's stimulus package in 2009.

A household making $100K is not 'rich.' Two teachers in NYC making $75K are not rich, they can afford to buy maybe a crappy 2br apartment in Queens. Maybe.

Your bizarre notion that households making over $100K--including firefighters, teachers, and bus drivers:

http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/postings/skilled.htm

--are rich does not trump reality.

[hfojvt]

92. and then President Obama let it expire

and it has not been heard from since.

Funny I didn't remember campaign Obama saying "it will just be for two years" when he proposed the MWP credit.

I said it was abandoned by President Obama, and it was, at the end of 2010.

And I have this bizarre notion that everybody does not live in Queens.

Here's some data for the STATE of New York.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/ny.pdf

80% of households making less than $95,000
60% of households making less than $56,000

Yeah, when you make more than twice as much as half of the state, then you are richer than the average bear.

But let's look just at NYC, or its suburbs, where even richer people live.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/ct.pdf

80% of households making less than $116,000
60% of households making less than $73,000

Straight-line that and it means that 72.5% of households make less than $100,000 - even in the suburbs of NYC. And 40% of households there make less than $44,000. Even in Connecticut, $100,000 a year is the HIGH end of the upper middle class.

[geek tragedy]

94. No, CONGRESS let it expire. Your psychological need to blame Obama

for what Congress does and what Congress refuses to do is not rational.

Here's some background information about which you're obviously unaware.

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4702

Teachers in Wisconsin average $55K. So, apparently you think we were wasting our time supporting teachers in Wisconsin fighting against Scott Walker because, after all, they're rich so screw them.

[hfojvt]

96. well somewhere in there

some guys, I think they were named Obama and Biden, made some sort of DEAL with Congress. You know, to extend all those tax cuts for the rich that were gonna automatically expire.

Your psychological need to make excuses for the guy who should have a sign on his desk that says "the buck stops here" is NOT rational.

And Wisconsin? http://www.itep.org/pdf/wi.pdf

60% of households in Wisconsin make less than $57,000.
80% make less than $86,000.

They may not like to hear it, but a teacher does have a pretty good paying job.

And I never said "screw them".

I said, make them pay a little bit more in taxes. A pair of Wisconsin teachers would pay a whole $300 a year more. Not that much more than the tax increase that I got at $13,000 a year.

[geek tragedy]

97. I guess you could have cut a better deal by waving your Internet magic stick

Or, I guess, by simply letting everyone's taxes go up, including yours going up by about $700 instead of $137.

And, of course, a massive across-the-board tax increase is just what the economy needed then.

[LukeFL]

103. LOL

Good job!
Some will blame him no matter what.. Keep in moving folks, there's nothing here

[ProSense]

82. More nonsense

"In 2010, he allowed the Making Work Pay credit to expire and replaced it with the Accursed Payroll Tax cut. In 2010, my wage income was $13,130.28. So the payroll tax cut for somebody like me was $262.60 minus the $400 MWP credit that went away. And my taxes went up by $137.40. Meanwhile that $100,000 couple got a payroll tax cut of $2,000. "

You're claiming that your taxes went up after the payroll tax expired. Yet you are advocating that Obama should have done nothing and let the tax cuts expire, which would have been a tax increase.

I noticed you ignored my point here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post16) :

Again, the dividend rate is back to 39.6 percent the qualified dividend is up from 15 percent to 20 percent, and both are subject to the ACA tax increase.

The "honesty FAIL" is your misinformation about the tax increases because you wanted no action, which would have increased taxes on the bottom 90 percent.

I guess you would have considered that a tax increase for the rich, huh?

Ludicrous.

[hfojvt]

90. again with the false dichotomy

I was against the invasion of Iraq. Those who wanted to invade Iraq argued that my position was that Bush should "do nothing".

So again, I am against permanent tax cuts that favor the rich. And you, who want to applaud the permanent tax cuts for the rich that Obama enacted, say that I am arguing for Obama to "do nothing".

Those are NOT the only alternatives.

And for the record YES. Since, I am quite sure that the rich (the top 20%) got the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts, that letting them expire would mean that the rich (the top 20%) would be paying MOST of the tax increases.

But again, we are right back at Bush logic, where he claimed that his tax cuts would help the poor.

Now Obama, Krugman and his defenders will say "Obama had to give permanent tax cuts to the rich in order to keep the poor from paying higher taxes".

He did it for the poor.

Even though the rich got most of the benefits of what he did.

He did it for the poor.

[ProSense]

91. This is

"I was against the invasion of Iraq. Those who wanted to invade Iraq argued that my position was that Bush should 'do nothing'."

...irrelevant, and this on top of the fact that you called Krugman a "liar," is drivel:

"So again, I am against permanent tax cuts that favor the rich. And you, who want to applaud the permanent tax cuts for the rich that Obama enacted, say that I am arguing for Obama to 'do nothing'. "

[hfojvt]

93. no, it is a perfect example

of how some people create the false choice between

a. Bad policy
and
b. do nothing

As if Obama and the Democratic Party are somehow incapable of proposing, or fighting for

c. good policy.

I'm against bad policy. Krugman wants to argue that bad policy is actually good policy. I'd say that makes the shoe fit.

So I threw it at him.

[ProSense]

95. It can't be a "perfect example"

because your comments, including the current one, don't make sense for two reasons:

1) You're debating own bizarre theory and calling Krugman a liar because his comments have nothing to do with it.

2) From the number of contradictions in your statements, I doubt even you know what the hell you're talking about.

[ProSense]

10. Except for

the BS claim, expect crickets. There will be no calls fo Krugman to be a member of the Cabinet.

[blackspade]

30. If what he says is true then.....

Obama deserves the praise.
I have a lot of issues with Obama's presidency, but when he does something I agree with I am more than willing to give him credit.
This is one of those cases. Now If we can win back the House and close some of these loopholes I would be overjoyed.
But, until we get money out of elections there will be no reforms that benefit the 99% in the long term.

[octoberlib]

34. /\ THIS /\ nt

[Cha]

41. If by calling him a

"cheerleader " does it.. then he's there.



Krugman couldn't care less what Obama haters call him.

[JHB]

42. Did Krgman switch busses?

In the first term he was on the bus after columns that basically criticized Fepublicans and under the bus after mild criticisms of the administration's policies (or possible trial balloons).

It was so predictable that a "Krugman seat" was like a Ferris wheel: it regularly cycled through "on" and "under" classifications, even though it didn't actually move all that much.

If you're saying he's switched busses, so now he's "under" when mildly praising the administration, at least he brought his seat with him.

[hfojvt]

4. more pro-Obama bullsh*t from Kruggers

First, limiting things to the top 1%.

As if the top 20% is NOT far richer than the bottom 20%. As if the top 10% and the top 5% have not also been taking a larger share of the pie http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023937994

But that's cool, let's give trillions in permanent tax cuts to the top 5% and pretend we are sticking it to the rich, eh Krugman?

And the top 1%? As he alludes to in the link, the top 1% was not nearly as well off in 1979 as they are in 2013. As a group they paid a lower average tax rate because they didn't have as much money in 1979. In 1980, as my link shows, they only had 10% of the national income. Unlike 2010 when they had almost 20%.

And, it handily includes the tax increases from Obamacare (passed in 2010) as a way to hide the permanent tax cuts from ATRA (passed in 2013). Yeah, Obama really stuck it to them with the permanent tax cuts on dividends, and the permanent cuts to the estate tax.

Krugman, you are just a liar.

[ProSense]

7. There

"As if the top 20% is NOT far richer than the bottom 20%. As if the top 10% and the top 5% have not also been taking a larger share of the pie"

...you go again, making an argument that has nothing to do with Krugman's point to attack him.

"Krugman, you are just a liar."

The fact is that taxes went up on all high-income earners: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post2

You can't spin bullshit to claim that Krugman is a "liar." Your posts are nothing but silly spin.

[jazzimov]

21. WTF? "Krugman, you are just a liar". That's the lie.

Yes, we all need to do more. But it's disingenuous to say that Obama has done nothing, much less to say that he's made it worse.

[hfojvt]

38. no, it is a simple fact

Obama signed ATRA into law - making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

That's $3.7 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade.

$1.3 trillion to the RICHEST 5%
$800 billion to the poorest 60%

You don't think giving $1.3 trillion to the top and only $800 billion to the bottom does NOT make things MORE unequal?

But that's the trouble. Obama and Krugman have huge pulpits from which to catapault their propaganda. Anybody trying to spread the truth is just a hater, or a liar.

But I must be wrong. If Krugman says 800 is greater than 1,300 then it must be so. The great and powerful Krugman has spoken.

[geek tragedy]

25. Diagnosis: ODS morphing into KDS. nt

[Vattel]

6. poor little plutocrats

big bad Obama is making them pay a little for their incredibly unfair share of wealth.

[hfojvt]

9. example, Alice Walton

According to Forbes, she made over $350 million from Wal-mart dividends http://www.forbes.com/profile/alice-walton/

Sure, thanks to ACA, she will pay an extra 4.7% in taxes on that income. She will pay $16.45 million more.

But thanks to ATRA she will only pay 20% tax rate on dividend income, instead of 39.6%. A savings of $68.6 million.

Net tax CUT every year - $52 million.

Yeah, that really has to hurt her interests, eh Mr. Krugman? She must be crying all the way to the bank.

[ProSense]

11. Math FAIL

"Sure, thanks to ACA, she will pay an extra 4.7% in taxes on that income. She will pay $16.45 million more.

But thanks to ATRA she will only pay 20% tax rate on dividend income, instead of 39.6%. A savings of $68.6 million."

Obama increased the dividend rate to 39.6 pecent, which also qualifies for the 4.7 pecent increase, and increased the qualified dividend rate from 15 percent to 20 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#Dividend_tax_policy

[hfojvt]

15. honesty FAIL

He only "increased" the rate to 20% if you ignore the fact that the rate was automatically gonna go to 39% if ATRA wasn't passed.

So Obama (and Congressional Democrats) CUT the rate (providing a windfall tax cut for Alice Walton) and then CLAIMED that he increased the rate.

So

Policies that help Alice Walton - check
Lying to the public about it - check.
Krugman cheering it instead of calling him out - check

[ProSense]

16. More nonsense.

"He only 'increased' the rate to 20% if you ignore the fact that the rate was automatically gonna go to 39% if ATRA wasn't passed."

Again, the dividend rate is back to 39.6 percent the qualified dividend is up from 15 percent to 20 percent, and both are subject to the ACA tax increase.

The "honesty FAIL" is your misinformation about the tax increases because you wanted no action, which would have increased taxes on the bottom 90 percent.

I guess you would have considered that a tax increase for the rich, huh?

Ludicrous.

[hfojvt]

85. your comment makes no sense n/t

[ProSense]

86. Yes, it does, but

given all the silliness of some comments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post77

I can understand why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post82

[jazzimov]

22. For an "honesty FAIL", look in the mirror. nt

[hfojvt]

74. that's kinda MY line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4391402

[Whisp]

14. K&R

when the Justice dept gloms onto some of the preditors on wall street, I can't wait for the reactions here on DU from the particular faction that treats Obama like the RW treats him.

[ProSense]

18. Don't forget

let it sink.

[ProSense]

17. Kick for

facts.

[dawg]

19. I'm kicking your thread, ProSense.

Because Dr. Krugman's post is factual and I don't run from the facts. (Except in my personal life, which is another story altogether )

Krugman has been critical of Obama in the past, and I have generally agreed with his criticisms. But there is no disputing the fact that progress has been made in terms of taxes paid by the 1%.

[ProSense]

20. Thanks n/t

[Number23]

23. I wondered where the screaming and gnashing sounds were coming from

Actually, Obama has been tougher on the one percent than most progressives give him credit for.

And GD has a collective aneurysm. Not that I'm in any way convinced that's what all of these folks around here are.

[ProSense]

24. .

Let it sink.

[ProSense]

28. I wasn't serious.

[Number23]

29. Oh, you know that.

Constant wailing and bemoaning, even if based on the most misinterpreted, uninformed idiocy? 300 recs!

A detailed analysis from one of the nation's imminent economist that declares that progressives (and whatever these folks in GD are) have not given the president nearly enough credit? We'll do good to get a baker's dozen up in here.

[Cha]

31. K&R!!

[Demo_Chris]

32. Sadly, Kraugman has become a full time cheerleader for this administration. Bummer. nt

[ProSense]

33. LOL!

[Cha]

40. ....

[pampango]

39. Ouch! Shoot that messenger! Times are tough when Nobel-prize winning liberal economist has to

make a living as "a full time cheerleader for this administration".

As much as Krugman bashes republicans, I suspect they would agree with you about his new job.

[Demo_Chris]

44. What is there to disagree with?

The idea that Obama has been tough on the wealthy is as ridiculous as claiming that the Pope is tough on pedophiles. The elite, as always, own the White House and the current administration, and Obama does exactly what they tell him to do. As for Krugman, he is living proof that economics is more religion than science. He was an outspoken supporter of NAFTA and free trade before it passed and he defended it in the face of all evidence after it had passed.

Now he is defending the TPP. According to him, it's just no big deal. Just like NAFTA. According to his school of economic thought, which might as well be defined as slightly modified supply side, efficiencies from free trade are passed along to workers in the form of higher wages. Presumably, in Krugman's world view, outsourcing someone's job results in them receiving a pay raise. Or something. No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but it's not supposed to. You aren't supposed to look past the headlines or first paragraph on articles of this type. Just repeat the headline: 'Nobel prize winning liberal economist thinks free trade is awesome.'

But just as Krugman's defense and promotion of 'free trade' evaporates on examination, so too does his praise of this administration in the current article. Don't THINK about what he is saying, just repeat the headline like a mantra. Obama's tough on the 1%, the 'Nobel prize winning liberal' says so.

[geek tragedy]

47. rule of practice: when one person argues with numbers, and the other responds

with fact-free hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric, the person with the numbers wins.

[pampango]

67. Numbers get you nowhere with republicans (one reason they hate Krugman).

You give them numbers on climate change or the effect of raising the minimum wage (or almost any other liberal policy) and they respond with "with fact-free hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric". I imagine Krugman is used to that reaction.

[Cha]

101. +1

[geek tragedy]

43. Ha ha. nt

[seveneyes]

45. Krugman is a Millionaire

He can pay cash for anything he needs. Many people in poverty could be helped with the money he has.

[pampango]

75. FDR was a millionaire. It seems possible to be a millionaire and a liberal at the same time. n/t

[seveneyes]

76. FDR had power to change things for people

Krugman could help a lot of poor people with his millions.

[pampango]

78. So liberal economists are judged by different rules than liberal politicians. Got it.

Was FDR 'liberal' when he was the governor of New York or does one have to be a president to get a pass on being a millionaire and a liberal simultaneously?

I have no idea how much money Krugman has or what causes he supports with it. He bashes republicans and their policies consistently from a liberal perspective. If that is not good enough for you because he still has some money in the bank, so be it.

I hope that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders don't have much money in the bank or their views will be discredited. Oh, I forgot they are politicians. Do senators go by the same FDR rule as presidents?

[JHB]

46. It'd be interesting to see the numbers for farther back...

...say for the entire postwar period and to parse it further: the top 0.01%, top 0.1%, top 1% top 5%, and top 10%. Or, as long as I'm wishing, the last 100 or 150 years.


If I recall correctly over the 12 years for which George Romney release his tax returns (circa 1954-1966, when the top marginal income tax rate was 91% for most of that, and 70% for the few years at the end), his taxes averaged 37%.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Isn't that just on earned income?

Most of the wealthy get the vast bulk of their income from "capital gains", tax at a far lower rate. And half of capital gains are not taxed at all because of the way it's transferred to heirs at death.

[ProSense]

52. No,

"Most of the wealthy get the vast bulk of their income from 'capital gains,' tax at a far lower rate. And half of capital gains are not taxed at all because of the way it's transferred to heirs at death."

...the dividend rate is back to 39.6 percent the qualified dividend is up from 15 percent to 20 percent, and both are subject to the ACA tax increase. The new heatlh care law raised the payroll tax for high income earners and taxed investment income.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

Krugman got it right. Do you doubt that?

[MannyGoldstein]

54. So the fed tax rate under Obama more than doubled for the wealthiest?

Last time I checked the IRS figures, the wealthiest paid at about a 17% rate, e.g.,



(And that's 17% of an artificially-low number to begin with, as that lunatic Romney showed us.)

Obama doubled it? Absolutely fantastic if true, but it doesn't smell right, considering that only 25% or so of the Bush tax cuts expired. Let's see if Krugman comments some more.

[ProSense]

55. Do you really

"So the fed tax rate under Obama almost more than doubled for the wealthiest?"

...believe that a chart showing the "effective" tax rate taking a dive through 2007 is rebuttal to the facts in the OP?

[MannyGoldstein]

57. No, it simply supports my contention that it would have to have roughly doubled. nt

[ProSense]

59. What "would have to have roughly doubled"?

What does a 15-year drop (through 2007) in the effective tax rate have to do with the point of the OP?

[MannyGoldstein]

60. What values do you see on that chart

for tax rates on the wealthiest as of 2007?

[ProSense]

62. What does that have to do with the OP? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

63. Either my writing sucks this morning

or you're being willfully obtuse.

(Or both)

[ProSense]

65. Actually,

"Either my writing sucks this morning or you're being willfully obtuse."

...I think you're projecting. A chart showing the effective tax rate plummeting through 2007 has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

Nada. Nothing. Zip.

Still, the attempts are really entertaining.

[ProSense]

56. I have to say

it's fairly hilarious watching the biggest advocate of Krugman for a cabinet position now trying to discredit his claim.

Paul Krugman is unserious, a Firebagger and increasingly irrelevant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002840829#post3

If Obama appointed Paul Krugman as WH advisor...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002738691

[MannyGoldstein]

58. No, I'm confident that he's correct in what he said

But his language is ambiguous to me, so I'm not sure *what* he said.

[ProSense]

61. Wait

"No, I'm confident that he's correct in what he said

But his language is ambiguous to me, so I'm not sure *what* he said. "

...he's "correct," but you're "not sure *what* he said."

You wouldn't be trying to discredit the OP point because Krugman said something factual and positive about Obama, would you?

[MannyGoldstein]

64. I'm confident that he's not making things up

because he has a track record of accuracy and honesty.

Nobody wants Obama to turn things around more than I do. My skepticism should not be viewed wishful thinking.

[ProSense]

66. What

"I'm confident that he's not making things up because he has a track record of accuracy and honesty.

Nobody wants Obama to turn things around more than I do. My skepticism should not be viewed wishful thinking. "

...on earth does that mean? You're confident Krugman is not "making things up," but the OP is cause for "skepticism"?

Do you have something against facts?

[MannyGoldstein]

68. So what is - and is not - included in "Average Federal Tax Rate"?

Bonus question - why does Krugman's chart show that the top 1% paid a 28% rate in 2007, while the IRS's chart shows 22%?

I think that Krugman is looking at a different thing than you think he is.

[ProSense]

69. Ah,

"So what is - and is not - included in "Average Federal Tax Rate"

Bonus question - why does Krugman's chart show that the top 1% paid a 28% rate in 2007, while the IRS's chart shows 22%?

I think that Krugman is looking at a different thing than you think he is. "

...still trying to discredit Krugman, huh?

Wait, you wouldn't be trying to discredit me now, would you?

I posted the OP, nothing else. It speaks for itself.

Your apples and oranges comparison is transparent, and you clearly are disturbed by the fact that Krugman said something postive about Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. I guess those questions are difficult to answer.

Certainly, I'd like to know the answer.

[ProSense]

71. No,

"I guess those questions are difficult to answer. Certainly, I'd like to know the answer."

...they're irrelevant. Anyone with eyes can see the attempt to conflate unrelated issues.

The question is why so determined?

[hfojvt]

100. a mere mortal like yourself

is not allowed to question the great gods of Krugman and Obama.

Merely genuflect and applaud.

And maybe send money.

[Number23]

98. Ha! Damn fine catch

not that this will surprise anyone, you know. Not anyone with eyes to see or a brain to understand.

[hfojvt]

99. I have them at 22%

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/169

But Krugman is looking at the top 1%. Which would be household income over $400,000 or so.

Your chart here has two lines

one for income over $1,000,000
and one for the Fab 400. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123

Those are smaller, and richer groups, than the top 1%, and thanks to various tax cuts, they pay a lower average rate than the rest of the 1%.

Of course, the last four years on Krugman's chart are "estimates". In two or three years the truth will come out.

[Democat]

53. Impossible, Obama never does anything right

Krugman must be lying.

[riqster]

80. But he didn't tax them enough, so he SUCKS!!!

Yep, again.

[MrsKirkley]

83. What about President Obama wanting to fast track the TPP

I'm glad he's making the rich pay more taxes, but if he wants to help the poor and middle-class, why is he contradicting himself by supporting another free trade deal?

[ProSense]

84. Obamacare Will Help Reduce Income Inequality

Obamacare Will Help Reduce Income Inequality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024395345

[Jamaal510]

87. This is why Sheldon and the Kochs hate him so much. eom

[ProSense]

102. Kick! n/t