By David Beilstein
MOONBAT economist, Paul Krugman, wrote a column for the New York Times touting a return to the dismal 91% tax rate on top income earners.
In pining to a return to the days — and tax rates, of the 1950s, Krugman writes,
Squeezed between high taxes and empowered workers, executives were relatively impoverished by the standards of either earlier or later generations. In 1955 Fortune magazine published an essay, “How top executives live,” which emphasized how modest their lifestyles had become compared with days of yore. The vast mansions, armies of servants, and huge yachts of the 1920s were no more; by 1955 the typical executive, Fortune claimed, lived in a smallish suburban house, relied on part-time help and skippered his own relatively small boat.
Impoverishment is never good; for executives, or anyone else. I would gather Krugman himself is not impoverished and he does not even produce a product. It seems criticism aimed at the GOP this election cycle was that they were stuck in the past; like say, the 1950s. Given Krugman’s column, it becomes even clearer to me why venerating the past wholesale is unwise.
Some things about the 1950s were not so hot.
Racial issues come to mind, especially if one was black. But also the tax rates. Does the government have a right to steal 91% of what a person owns — which is 91% of a persons time and labor? Krugman defends high top marginal rates with the most visceral account of what wealth can purchase, the excesses of the Gatsby-like exuberance of the 1920s. But that is not the point. Also, the amount of jobs created by those who could afford such lavish toys was legion. The Yachts have to be built; servants do not work for free.
Paul Krugman has achieved high levels of income. One must ask: should the government hold him back?
But the prevalent moonbat hysteria in our epoch is foil with parsimoniousness; a ‘live as I say, not as I do’ mentality abides in men like Krugman. It is an immensely irritating concomitant of big government arousal. Krugman is neither wise nor profound; he is a petulant ass worthy of rapacious scorn.
One must clearly lock into the mind that for Krugman and his ilk Americans who work and produce are plebeians; the exemption being the ruling class. Recall the ruling class and their fetid intellectual pretension; those sanguinary packs of bureaucratic fools who have scorned the life of men honing the art of private production. Men and women whose skills gather neither New York Times’ columns or Nobel Peace Prize’s for economics brimming with no better science than witchcraft.
If Krugman desires a 91% tax on top income earners, he is welcome to it. Like many men, Krugman can do unlimited charity and balderdash with other people’s income.
Forgive me for my tone. The Daily Caller posted this piece. I have nothing large against Marco Rubio (R-FL), but the GOP collective gasps in Iowa over a Rubio presidential run are insensate. We just had a presidential election that should have been won… easily. It is always tomorrow with the GOP brand; it’s always in the airless future they’ll get the Democrats. But what the hell happened this year is what legions of liberty-loving individuals want to know; a vulnerable president of incompetence — economic numbers that should have secured Republican victory?
Sorry, but I’m just not that enthused over Rubio.