Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[Uncensored2008]

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

exactly. Krugman noted that in the debate.

The economy boomed because of an asset bubble. Any claims to the contrary is intellectual dishonesty.

Can I introduce you the Scheiß Mause? (Dot Com)

 

[Dot Com]

heres the full 1:15 min debate. I highly recommend watching it: Munk Debate on Taxation - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[AmazonTania]

Not after I pay off the bank you flippin' idiot.

Then you've just described more about your finances and the value of your home than you care to admit.

I've just admitted more about my finances than I care to admit? Wow, such a witty observation!

I only asked if you owned a home. I didn't really ask for any other type of information. But if your current predicament prevents you from from being in the Top 1%, I'm sorry. Better luck next time.

In my case it would not. Am I "anyone" ?

Anyone who owns a home. Not everyone is a homeowner, but it's just one example I use as it is the easiest example for people to follow.

No, I'm saying that selling it would not put me in the top 1% like you claimed. My fuck you have difficulty following a conservation.


BTW dumby fuck - it only counts as INCOME if its above what was paid for the house.

Yes... I already stated that. Thanks for that, although this is distracting away from the point I am trying to make.

It's not about what your net income is. It's about what you earn in that particular year. Period. If you are a home owner in the San Francisco area, and you've sold your home for $400,000, you are in the Top 1%. Even if you sold it at the market value of $400,000 $50,000 from it's peak a few years ago, you are still in the Top 1%. How much money you have made after you have sold your home is only relevant if you want to make a Capital Gain. Which may be the case for everyone, but it is not the point. This taxable year, you are in the Top 1% threshold because you have made an excess of $380,000. The next taxable year, if you have not made any income you fall from the Top 1% into poverty stricken territory.

That's brackets are changing all the time and people are always moving among these categories. The same people who are in the Top 1% now, were not there 10 or 20 years ago. The same people who were in the bottom quintile 10 or 20 years ago, are not there now. Who comprises these quintiles matters more than just looking at snapshot data of income earners from one particular year to the next. The same top 1% will most likely not be the same Top 1% in the future. The Bottom 20% will not be the same Bottom 20% in the future as well. Which is why the entire mantra about income inequality is really misleading and generally misunderstood.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then you've just described more about your finances and the value of your home than you care to admit.

I've just admitted more about my finances than I care to admit? Wow, such a witty observation!

I only asked if you owned a home. I didn't really ask for any other type of information. But if your current predicament prevents you from from being in the Top 1%, I'm sorry. Better luck next time.

In my case it would not. Am I "anyone" ?

Anyone who owns a home. Not everyone is a homeowner, but it's just one example I use as it is the easiest example for people to follow.

No, I'm saying that selling it would not put me in the top 1% like you claimed. My fuck you have difficulty following a conservation.


BTW dumby fuck - it only counts as INCOME if its above what was paid for the house.

Yes... I already stated that. Thanks for that, although this is distracting away from the point I am trying to make.

It's not about what your net income is. It's about what you earn in that particular year. Period. If you are a home owner in the San Francisco area, and you've sold your home for $400,000, you are in the Top 1%. Even if you sold it at the market value of $400,000 $50,000 from it's peak a few years ago, you are still in the Top 1%. How much money you have made after you have sold your home is only relevant if you want to make a Capital Gain. Which may be the case for everyone, but it is not the point. This taxable year, you are in the Top 1% threshold because you have made an excess of $380,000. The next taxable year, if you have not made any income you fall from the Top 1% into poverty stricken territory.

That's not how income is measured you moron. Income from a capital investment like a home is computed as the difference between the price you sold it at and the price you bought it. By your retarded logic, you could make it to the top 1% by buying a 2 million dollar home and selling it for 1 million dollars the next day.
Did you say you worked in finance? What do you do, advise businesses on how to cook the books? Just count revenues, don't worry about expenses, right?



It must be nice, BTW, to only know people with homes valued at greater than the income of the top 1%, but the majority of Americans aren't so fortunate. They can't just sell their homes and magically appear in the top 1% group, because the median value of their homes is only $208,000

US Existing Home Median Sales Price (Monthly, NSA, USD)

 

[jwoodie]

Can anyone decipher Krugman's latest column about unemployment? He seems clueless...

 

[jwoodie]

Liberals are the first to adjust their personal economic decisions to changing conditions (e.g., taxes) but reject the notion that others would do the same. Is dynamic scoring too difficult a concept for them?

 

[AmazonTania]

I've just admitted more about my finances than I care to admit? Wow, such a witty observation!

I only asked if you owned a home. I didn't really ask for any other type of information. But if your current predicament prevents you from from being in the Top 1%, I'm sorry. Better luck next time.



Anyone who owns a home. Not everyone is a homeowner, but it's just one example I use as it is the easiest example for people to follow.

No, I'm saying that selling it would not put me in the top 1% like you claimed. My fuck you have difficulty following a conservation.


BTW dumby fuck - it only counts as INCOME if its above what was paid for the house.

Yes... I already stated that. Thanks for that, although this is distracting away from the point I am trying to make.

It's not about what your net income is. It's about what you earn in that particular year. Period. If you are a home owner in the San Francisco area, and you've sold your home for $400,000, you are in the Top 1%. Even if you sold it at the market value of $400,000 $50,000 from it's peak a few years ago, you are still in the Top 1%. How much money you have made after you have sold your home is only relevant if you want to make a Capital Gain. Which may be the case for everyone, but it is not the point. This taxable year, you are in the Top 1% threshold because you have made an excess of $380,000. The next taxable year, if you have not made any income you fall from the Top 1% into poverty stricken territory.

That's not how income is measured you moron. Income from a capital investment like a home is computed as the difference between the price you sold it at and the price you bought it. By your retarded logic, you could make it to the top 1% by buying a 2 million dollar home and selling it for 1 million dollars the next day.

If you purchased an asset for $500.000 and five years you've sold your asset for $400,000, you have a capital loss of $100,000. This doesn't take away from the fact that you how have $400,000 in income from the asset you have just sold, which your losses will only allow to offset $3,000 for that taxable year, and each year after until you have exhausted your capital losses.

So technically, you have made $403,000 for that year. But that is still your income, and you are still in the Top 1% if you've made this amount of money for that taxable year.

Seriously, you should look this up.

Did you say you worked in finance? What do you do, advise businesses on how to cook the books? Just count revenues, don't worry about expenses, right?

I don't advise businesses, but nonetheless, you are still wrong.

It must be nice, BTW, to only know people with homes valued at greater than the income of the top 1%, but the majority of Americans aren't so fortunate. They can't just sell their homes and magically appear in the top 1% group, because the median value of their homes is only $208,000

US Existing Home Median Sales Price (Monthly, NSA, USD)

That's just the median. The places I have already mentioned have homes at a market price well above their value.

 

[Toro]

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

And it had nothing to do with the dot com bubble.....

So you don't ascribe to the notion that Tax Cuts Solve Everything. Good.

And the economy was moving well before the bubble.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I only asked if you owned a home. I didn't really ask for any other type of information. But if your current predicament prevents you from from being in the Top 1%, I'm sorry. Better luck next time.



Anyone who owns a home. Not everyone is a homeowner, but it's just one example I use as it is the easiest example for people to follow.



Yes... I already stated that. Thanks for that, although this is distracting away from the point I am trying to make.

It's not about what your net income is. It's about what you earn in that particular year. Period. If you are a home owner in the San Francisco area, and you've sold your home for $400,000, you are in the Top 1%. Even if you sold it at the market value of $400,000 $50,000 from it's peak a few years ago, you are still in the Top 1%. How much money you have made after you have sold your home is only relevant if you want to make a Capital Gain. Which may be the case for everyone, but it is not the point. This taxable year, you are in the Top 1% threshold because you have made an excess of $380,000. The next taxable year, if you have not made any income you fall from the Top 1% into poverty stricken territory.

That's not how income is measured you moron. Income from a capital investment like a home is computed as the difference between the price you sold it at and the price you bought it. By your retarded logic, you could make it to the top 1% by buying a 2 million dollar home and selling it for 1 million dollars the next day.

LMAO, that is how your taxable income is measured. You just don't understand the difference between taxable income (gross income) and capital gains/losses.

If you purchased an asset for $500.000 and five years you've sold your asset for $400,000, you have a capital loss of $100,000. This doesn't take away from the tax that you how have $400,000 in taxable income from the asset you have just sold, which your losses will only allow to offset $3,000 for that taxable year, and each year after until you have exhausted your capital losses.

So technically, you have made $403,000 for that year. But that is still your income, and you are still in the Top 1% if you've made this amount of money for that taxable year.

The 400k is only taxable if you've depreciated that asset down to zero, you fucking idiot.
Your primary residence is not depreciable.

Seriously, you should really look these things up.


How the fuck do you even get $403,000, anyway? I get that you are including the 400k as income, but then you take the 3k LOSS and ADD it to the income? Jesus Christ are you seriously this stupid?

 

[Toro]

I do agree that compensation has not kept up with productivity, and much of that gain has been captured by the owners of capital.

However, wages are only a portion of total compensation and shouldn't be used in isolation as a comparison. Total compensation has risen faster if you include all compensation, such as healthcare insurance, which has grown faster than the economy.

There is a good reason for the gains of the owners of capital, to wit, they aren't real.

Red line is debt, blue line GDP

Debt in this nation is a ticking timebomb that will make the housing bubble seem like a walk in the park.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the gains from productivity accruing to capital rather than labour. Profit margins are at all time highs. The percentage of profits to GDP are near all time highs. Private industry's debt to assets is relatively low.

 

[kwc57]

he starts out w/ a msg board meme/put-down too followed by reasons to curtail the current plutocracy His 2 1/2 min closing argument here:

Paul Krugman - C-SPAN Video Library

Former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman debated former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Reagan economic advisor Arthur Laffer on the subject of raising taxes on the wealthy.

Krugman is one of the most educated morons around. Just sayin'.

 

[AmazonTania]

That's not how income is measured you moron. Income from a capital investment like a home is computed as the difference between the price you sold it at and the price you bought it. By your retarded logic, you could make it to the top 1% by buying a 2 million dollar home and selling it for 1 million dollars the next day.

LMAO, that is how your taxable income is measured. You just don't understand the difference between taxable income (gross income) and capital gains/losses.

If you purchased an asset for $500.000 and five years you've sold your asset for $400,000, you have a capital loss of $100,000. This doesn't take away from the tax that you how have $400,000 in taxable income from the asset you have just sold, which your losses will only allow to offset $3,000 for that taxable year, and each year after until you have exhausted your capital losses.

So technically, you have made $403,000 for that year. But that is still your income, and you are still in the Top 1% if you've made this amount of money for that taxable year.

The 400k is only taxable if you've depreciated that asset down to zero, you fucking idiot.
Your primary residence is not depreciable.

Seriously, you should really look these things up.

You've missed the point. Whether your primary residence is depreciable [sic] or not is irrelevant. The income threshold is based upon how much money an individual has made in a particular year, not what your general net income is.

You are still wrong.

How the fuck do you even get $403,000, anyway? I get that you are including the 400k as income, but then you take the 3k LOSS and ADD it to the income? Jesus Christ are you seriously this stupid?

I didn't use it as income, but as a deduction. Try to keep up. If you want to get into details, this is generally added after current taxable year, but only if the person actually made any income.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LMAO, that is how your taxable income is measured. You just don't understand the difference between taxable income (gross income) and capital gains/losses.

If you purchased an asset for $500.000 and five years you've sold your asset for $400,000, you have a capital loss of $100,000. This doesn't take away from the tax that you how have $400,000 in taxable income from the asset you have just sold, which your losses will only allow to offset $3,000 for that taxable year, and each year after until you have exhausted your capital losses.

So technically, you have made $403,000 for that year. But that is still your income, and you are still in the Top 1% if you've made this amount of money for that taxable year.

The 400k is only taxable if you've depreciated that asset down to zero, you fucking idiot.
Your primary residence is not depreciable.

Seriously, you should really look these things up.

You've missed the point. Whether your primary residence is depreciable [sic] or not is irrelevant.

Why are you putting "sic" next to a correctly spelled word?
depreciable - definition of depreciable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You claimed sale of an asset for 400k makes 400k in income - that's only true if its been entirely depreciated. So whether or not an asset has been depreciated is actually 100% relevant to the question of whether recaptured basis at sale is taxable. It only becomes irrelevant - conveniently - when you find out you're a fucking idiot and your wrong.

The income threshold is based upon how much money an individual has made in a particular year, not what your general net income is.

Whose income threshold? The one you made up in your head? Can you cite one that uses this fanciful method of calculating income? Recapture of non-depreciated principal is not counted as household income under anyone's definition in the entire fucking world except your own.

How the fuck do you even get $403,000, anyway? I get that you are including the 400k as income, but then you take the 3k LOSS and ADD it to the income? Jesus Christ are you seriously this stupid?

I didn't use it as income, but as a deduction. Try to keep up.

I'm trying very hard but your stupid moves to fast for me. Maybe you can go over your made up numbers again.

 

[Toro]

And FTR

1993 Tax increase
GDP thereafter
1994 - 4.2%
1995 - 2.0%
1996 - 4.4%
1997 - 4.3%

2001 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2002 - 1.9%
2003 - 3.9%
2003 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2004 - 2.9%
2005 - 2.8%
2006 - 2.4%
2007 - 2.2%

4 Year GDP CAGR after
1993 - 3.7%
2001 - 2.9%
2003 - 2.6%

So, no, cutting taxes and increasing growth is not "simple."

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And FTR

1993 Tax increase
GDP thereafter
1994 - 4.2%
1995 - 2.0%
1996 - 4.4%
1997 - 4.3%

2001 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2002 - 1.9%
2003 - 3.9%
2003 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2004 - 2.9%
2005 - 2.8%
2006 - 2.4%
2007 - 2.2%

4 Year GDP CAGR after
1993 - 3.7%
2001 - 2.9%
2003 - 2.6%

So, no, cutting taxes and increasing growth is not "simple."

Listen buddy, I don't know about all those "numbers" you are using, but I know some folks with some really nice looking blogs that say you're full of crap! You've been listening to Obamadummy too long!

 

[Toro]

And FTR

1993 Tax increase
GDP thereafter
1994 - 4.2%
1995 - 2.0%
1996 - 4.4%
1997 - 4.3%

2001 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2002 - 1.9%
2003 - 3.9%
2003 tax cut
GDP thereafter
2004 - 2.9%
2005 - 2.8%
2006 - 2.4%
2007 - 2.2%

4 Year GDP CAGR after
1993 - 3.7%
2001 - 2.9%
2003 - 2.6%

So, no, cutting taxes and increasing growth is not "simple."

And for those who think the economy grew because of a tech bubble in 94-97, the Nasdaq rose 19.2% per year during that time while the S&P500 rose by 22.9%. So tech stocks lagged the broader market.

 

[AmazonTania]

The 400k is only taxable if you've depreciated that asset down to zero, you fucking idiot.
Your primary residence is not depreciable.

Seriously, you should really look these things up.

You've missed the point. Whether your primary residence is depreciable [sic] or not is irrelevant.

Why are you putting "sic" next to a correctly spelled word?
depreciable - definition of depreciable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You claimed sale of an asset for 400k makes 400k in income - that's only true if its been entirely depreciated. So whether or not an asset has been depreciated is actually 100% relevant to the question of whether recaptured basis at sale is taxable. It only becomes irrelevant - conveniently - when you find out you're a fucking idiot and your wrong.

It's irrelevant because you cannot depreciate it because if you were allowed to depreciate your home would increase your gain when you sold. This is only for primary residences who are not using their home as a business or rental property.

In what way does this change the dynamics of anything I have just said? None. The money you receive from the initial sale is your income. That doesn't change. At all.

Whose income threshold? The one you made up in your head? Can you cite one that uses this fanciful method of calculating income? Recapture of non-depreciated principal is not counted as household income under anyone's definition in the entire fucking world except your own.

Under the Federal Government, in this case the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

I'm trying very hard but your stupid moves to fast for me. Maybe you can go over your made up numbers again.

The numbers I have used was easy enough so you can understand it. I really don't have any simpler ways of dumbing it down for you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You've missed the point. Whether your primary residence is depreciable [sic] or not is irrelevant.

Why are you putting "sic" next to a correctly spelled word?
depreciable - definition of depreciable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You claimed sale of an asset for 400k makes 400k in income - that's only true if its been entirely depreciated. So whether or not an asset has been depreciated is actually 100% relevant to the question of whether recaptured basis at sale is taxable. It only becomes irrelevant - conveniently - when you find out you're a fucking idiot and your wrong.

It's irrelevant because you cannot depreciate it because if you were allowed to depreciate your home would increase your gain when you sold. This is only for primary residences who are not using their home as a business or rental property.

In what way does this change the dynamics of anything I have just said? None. The money you receive from the initial sale is your income. That doesn't change. At all.

Whose income threshold? The one you made up in your head? Can you cite one that uses this fanciful method of calculating income? Recapture of non-depreciated principal is not counted as household income under anyone's definition in the entire fucking world except your own.

Under the Federal Government, in this case the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Regaining of non-depreciated principle is not part of any of these categories you moron:

Labor income, which includes cash wages and salaries (including those allocated by
employees to 401(k) plans), employer-paid health insurance premiums, and the
employer’s share of Social Security, Medi
care, and federal unemployment insurance
payroll taxes.
•
Business income, which includes net income from businesses and farms operated solely
by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations.
•
Capital gains, which are profits realized from the sale of assets. Increases in the value of
assets that have not been realized through sales are not included in market income.
•
Capital income (excluding capital gains)
comprises taxable and tax-exempt interest,
dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are
considered part of business income), positive rental income, and corporate income
taxes. Capital gains are considered separately and not included in this measure of capital
income. The Congressional Budget Office assumes in this analysis that corporate
income taxes are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from capital;
therefore, the amount of the corporate tax is included in household income measured
before taxes.
•
Other income, which includes income received in retirement for past services and any
other sources of income

Thanks for proving my point!

I'm trying very hard but your stupid moves to fast for me. Maybe you can go over your made up numbers again.

The numbers I have used was easy enough so you can understand it. I really don't have any simpler ways of dumbing it down for you.

Yeah, you take 400k that you count as income and 3k that you count as a loss and ADD them together. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[AmazonTania]

Why are you putting "sic" next to a correctly spelled word?
depreciable - definition of depreciable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
You claimed sale of an asset for 400k makes 400k in income - that's only true if its been entirely depreciated. So whether or not an asset has been depreciated is actually 100% relevant to the question of whether recaptured basis at sale is taxable. It only becomes irrelevant - conveniently - when you find out you're a fucking idiot and your wrong.

It's irrelevant because you cannot depreciate it because if you were allowed to depreciate your home would increase your gain when you sold. This is only for primary residences who are not using their home as a business or rental property.

In what way does this change the dynamics of anything I have just said? None. The money you receive from the initial sale is your income. That doesn't change. At all.



Under the Federal Government, in this case the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Regaining of non-depreciated principle is not part of any of these categories you moron:

Thanks for proving my point!

Yes... It does... You're really just not bright enough to see it...

Yeah, you take 400k that you count as income and 3k that you count as a loss and ADD them together. That makes a lot of sense.

It would have make sense for the sake of my initial point. If only you didn't have a difficult time keeping up. A person would sell their 400K asset, and then the next year be completely penniless. The deduction can only be offset if the person has accumulated any capital losses the next year. The deducted amount is still part of the income, nonetheless...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's irrelevant because you cannot depreciate it because if you were allowed to depreciate your home would increase your gain when you sold. This is only for primary residences who are not using their home as a business or rental property.

In what way does this change the dynamics of anything I have just said? None. The money you receive from the initial sale is your income. That doesn't change. At all.



Under the Federal Government, in this case the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Yes... It does... You're really just not bright enough to see it...

Right and neither is the CBO apparently. Can you show me where in the document you provided that recaptured basis counts as income? No. Because regaining your basis isn't income by any measure of income you fucking idiot.

It would have make sense for the sake of my initial point. If only you didn't have a difficult time keeping up. A person would sell their 400K asset, and then the next year be completely penniless. The deduction can only be offset if the person has accumulated any capital losses the next year. The deducted amount is still part of the income, nonetheless...

Deductions aren't offset by capital losses you idiot, capital losses ARE deductions (though if you go over the limit you have to put them off until future years).

Its pretty fucking simple.

BUY a 500k asset ---------------- (500k)
SELL it for 400k ---------------- 400k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Gain/Loss ---------------- (100k)

If that's the only asset sold in the year, you have a 100k loss, 3k of which may be immediately claimed, and 97k of which may offset gains or count as part of a 3k max loss in the future.