Post-COVID downtowns.. / mass transit

[Pakuni]

Meh. I don't think you become Hugo Chavez if you say "we should make it a policy goal that the middle 75% of Americans possess 40% of American wealth" or something along those lines.  If you're trying to draw a flat wealth curve? Sure, then that's an apt comparison.  But a strong middle class and top marginal tax rate above 50% to fuel a strong public education system aren't exactly the same as government controlled means of production.

You mean Eisenhower wasn't a socialist?

[tower912]

91% top tax rate.   Socialized highway system.   Warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex.   Clearly somewhere between Kruschev and Mao. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

"The 1950s were the best time ever!!!  It was when America was at its peak!!!!"  (Except when it comes to tax rates)

[MUBurrow]

FWIW, in fairness, there is a lot of good data out there that suggests that even with the eye popping top marginal rate in the 50s, the actual tax burden on the ulta wealthy wasn't as high as we'd think.  That's due to a lot of factors, among them that the 91% bracket didn't kick in until the equivalent of over $2 million in taxable income in today's dollars and that compliance was much lower (I would imagine due to processes like withholding and wire transfers being much less automated and trackable, but that's a total guess).  So we can't draw a linear curve from the top bracket in the 50s to today and learn much about tax revenues. But the point remains that its a hell of a bit of governmental value projecting that wouldn't fly in today's climate where even the idea of proposing a predetermined-wealth-curve-as-policy-goal is met with screams of Marxism.

[Skatastrophy]

"The 1950s were the best time ever!!!  It was when America was at its peak!!!!"  (Except when it comes to tax rates)

But all of the billionaires must have fled the US in the 40s, 50s, and 60s with their tax rate at 40+%, right? No? Weird.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Love the scoop economists.   

[Not A Serious Person]

Poor guy...that tax hit he's taking is really limiting his ability to live his best life.  He must have been shooting for a $60-$65MM home.

Google Griffin's homes. 

His Chicago home is about the sixth most expense one he owns.  He has almost $1 billion in homes, including the most expensive home in the world ($250m+ in NYC), the most expensive home in London ($122m), Palm Beach ($100+m), Miami ($60m) and the two most expensive homes in Chicago (his $60m home and his ex-wife's $50m, home).

[Not A Serious Person]

So you're not going to look at what the research actually says and just stick to your guns regardless. OK.

As I noted earlier, I know Saez and have downloaded his raw data files and use his data in some of my work. I've even discussed it with him (around 2012).

That is, he is using 1040 tax returns.  He is measuring income taxes.  The dominant part of this is Federal Taxes.  Yes state and local are included by they are small.

So yes, I'm sticking to my guns.

[Pakuni]

As I noted earlier, I know Saez and have downloaded his raw data files and use his data in some of my work. I've even discussed it with him (around 2012).

That is, he is using 1040 tax returns.  He is measuring income taxes.  The dominant part of this is Federal Taxes.  Yes state and local are included by they are small.

So yes, I'm sticking to my guns.

Given that 2/3 of all taxes are federal ... so what.
And no, he's not measuring just income taxes. Saying that over and over won't make it true, I promise.
I'll be done arguing with you now.

[jesmu84]

So socialism?  Venezuela says hi.

Lolz. Predictable.

The Nordic countries say hi

[ATL MU Warrior]

Google Griffin's homes. 

His Chicago home is about the sixth most expense one he owns.  He has almost $1 billion in homes, including the most expensive home in the world ($250m+ in NYC), the most expensive home in London ($122m), Palm Beach ($100+m), Miami ($60m) and the two most expensive homes in Chicago (his $60m home and his ex-wife's $50m, home).

Sounds like the sort of guy who can afford to pay a lot more in taxes

[Jockey]

I love my life in NYC. I have friends all over NY. People I’ve known for decades. I could go out of my apartment and cross the street and there was my comedy club and I could go up onstage and perform.

You've never been funny on Scoop - at least not intentionally.

[Jockey]

I have worked from home for 2+ years. In spite of what you'd think I'd say, I do not believe most people in jobs that could work from home, will continue to.

I have said the same thing. I don't think I would have gotten any of the promotions at my job if I had been working from home. If you don't have person-to-person interactions with bosses and mentors, you aren't climbing the ladder.

[Lennys Tap]

Love the scoop economists.   

Many from the Paul Krugman School. Paul’s an expert, of course, and has a Nobel Prize to prove it. He’s so smart he said that Donald Trump’s policies would result in an immediate recession that would likely turn into a depression. He was right for a few hours (in premarital trading following election night) and then became spectacularly wrong.

When it comes to Nobel winning economists, give me Milton Friedman.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The rich would pay a lot more, and the poor would actually receive money, under Friedman's taxation policy.  A flat tax rate with limited exemptions and deductions, and a negative tax rate to give the poor a universal income. 

No doubt that many would have a problem with him today.

[Pakuni]

Many from the Paul Krugman School. Paul’s an expert, of course, and has a Nobel Prize to prove it. He’s so smart he said that Donald Trump’s policies would result in an immediate recession that would likely turn into a depression. He was right for a few hours (in premarital trading following election night) and then became spectacularly wrong.

When it comes to Nobel winning economists, give me Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman certainly was an expert as well. His Nobel Prize proves it.
Of course, the implementation of one of his central and most prominent theories - that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon - led to the second-worst recession in U.S. history.
Some might say that's even worse than merely predicting a recession, but I'll leave it to all of you to judge.

[Lennys Tap]

Milton Friedman certainly was an expert as well. His Nobel Prize proves it.
Of course, the implementation of one of his central and most prominent theories - that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon - led to the second-worst recession in U.S. history.
Some might say that's even worse than merely predicting a recession, but I'll leave it to all of you to judge.

If you’re suggesting that Milton Friedman caused the Great Recession I very much disagree.

[Pakuni]

If you’re suggesting that Milton Friedman caused the Great Recession I very much disagree.

I'm saying the Fed's implementation of policies reflecting Friedman's theories of inflation was the primary cause of the 81-82 recession.
That was the country's worst recession prior to the Great Recession. For purposes of this discussion, I'm not calling the Great Depression a "recession."

FWIW  I'm not a Friedman hater, nor am I big fan or frequent reader of Krugman. More of a Paul Samuelson guy myself.
But if you're going to drag one for a hyperbolic prediction that didn't come true, best be ready to acknowledge where the other was wrong.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm saying the Fed's implementation of policies reflecting Friedman's theories of inflation was the primary cause of the 81-82 recession.
That was the country's worst recession prior to the Great Recession. For purposes of this discussion, I'm not calling the Great Depression a "recession."

FWIW  I'm not a Friedman hater, nor am I big fan or frequent reader of Krugman. More of a Paul Samuelson guy myself.
But if you're going to drag one for a hyperbolic prediction that didn't come true, best be ready to acknowledge where the other was wrong.

I would argue that your assertion that monetarism was the primary cause of the 81-82 is an opinion, not a consensus shared by those in the field. I concede, however, that there are circumstances under which his theory has failed.

[forgetful]

Many from the Paul Krugman School. Paul’s an expert, of course, and has a Nobel Prize to prove it. He’s so smart he said that Donald Trump’s policies would result in an immediate recession that would likely turn into a depression. He was right for a few hours (in premarital trading following election night) and then became spectacularly wrong.

When it comes to Nobel winning economists, give me Milton Friedman.

If I remember correctly, Krugman argued that the economy was still in a fragile state, and if you throw on un-needed tax cuts, you'd exhaust all tools one needs to fight an emergency induced recession. And when an emergency would strike, Trump would have the wrong people in charge, and listen to the wrong people. You know like COVID, where the Fed had to poor trillions of dollars into the economy to rescue stocks, and we had to spend over $3T in stimulus funds, and maybe more.

His argument was that we'd have to do exactly what we had to do, and then unwinding all this debt may cripple the nation for a long long time.

That all may still come true, especially if we see another shutdown this fall. Let's hope we've seen the worst of the economic fallout.

I actually think Krugman was using hyperbole, but he wasn't that far off on what could/is occurring.

[Pakuni]

I would argue that your assertion that monetarism was the primary cause of the 81-82 is an opinion, not a consensus shared by those in the field.

The Federal Reserve shares my opinion.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession_of_1981_82#:~:text=Lasting%20from%20July%201981%20to,effort%20to%20fight%20mounting%20inflation.&text=The%20economy%20was%20already%20in,unemployment%20at%20about%207.5%20percent.

[Lennys Tap]

The Federal Reserve shares my opinion.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession_of_1981_82#:~:text=Lasting%20from%20July%201981%20to,effort%20to%20fight%20mounting%20inflation.&text=The%20economy%20was%20already%20in,unemployment%20at%20about%207.5%20percent.

So we were in a world of hurt coming off a sharp recession in 1980 which followed the problems of the 70s. Volker took the pain in 81-82 but he stayed with the policy which ultimately pulled us out of a long lasting morass and helped contribute to almost two decades of growth/prosperity.That sounds like mostly good news to me. What am I missing? (Honest question)

[Pakuni]

So we were in a world of hurt coming off a sharp recession in 1980 which followed the problems of the 70s. Volker took the pain in 81-82 but he stayed with the policy which ultimately pulled us out of a long lasting morass and helped contribute to almost two decades of growth/prosperity.That sounds like mostly good news to me. What am I missing? (Honest question)

A couple of things, I think.
First, I'm not sure the only - much less best - way to counter inflation is to plunge the economy into a deep, 17-month recession with double-digit unemployment. Sure, it's effective - recessions do tend to eliminate inflation - but it seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Second, it wasn't monetarism or adherence to any other Friedman principle that pulled us out of that recession. It was a massive increase of government spending combined with tax cuts. That was a prescription for ending recessions advocated by Samuelson, not Friedman. In fact, increases in public spending  and rising deficits were policies Friedman typically opposed.

[Lennys Tap]

A couple of things, I think.
First, I'm not sure the only - much less best - way to counter inflation is to plunge the economy into a deep, 17-month recession with double-digit unemployment. Sure, it's effective - recessions do tend to eliminate inflation - but it seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Second, it wasn't monetarism or adherence to any other Friedman principle that pulled us out of that recession. It was a massive increase of government spending combined with tax cuts. That was a prescription for ending recessions advocated by Samuelson, not Friedman. In fact, increases in public spending  and rising deficits were policies Friedman typically opposed.

Well, according to the article you posted, Volker (despite criticism and pressure) stayed the course and was ultimately vindicated. Inflation eased, which (in line with his policy) allowed for stimulus which grew the economy. That’s how I read the article, anyway.

[Not A Serious Person]

Sounds like the sort of guy who can afford to pay a lot more in taxes

He can ... but remember my original argument in the series of threads above (Pakuni has not). 

Cuomo says 1% of the taxpayers in NYC pay 50% of the taxes.  This ratio is similar in many cities.  So, if you only lose a few very uber-wealthy taxpayers a city's budget/finances are screwed. (See the link above about Carolina Panther owner David Tepper and what happen to NJ when he moved to FL)

Why do the uber-wealthly live in certain places?  They have a business there that makes them uber-wealthy and they run it. It is that simple.

But if many of these business go virutal, or many of their employees are WFH, it makes it a lot easier to relocate those businesses. These uber-wealthy owners can move to better weather, more tax friendly states (like Tepper).  This is about their legal residence where they pay state/local taxes, not a second/third/fourth home they may vacation in.

The point is a lot of cities are highly dependent on uber-wealthy staying.  That is why Cuomo is begging them to come back to NY (link above).  Tax them more and the city becomes even more dependent on them and worse off if they leave.

So, Chicago can tax Griffin or Sam Zell more, but they both run financial services firms that are humming along fine with 100% of their employees WFH.  It has never been easier for them to move.

If both were to leave (again if) it blows a hole in Chicago's finances.

Finally ... Google their philanthropic activities in each city.  For instance, half the Art Institute of Chicago is named after Griffin.  The Chicago Museum of Modern Art on Chicago Ave is financed by Zell.  The new Lincoln park lake front running/biking path was paid for by Griffin. 

They are so wealthy that can not only pay more in taxes, they also spend 10s of millions on civic and cultural projects as well. 

Be more worried about them leaving then taking more of their money (FYI - Griffin grew up in FL which is why he has two homes there.  He would be perfectly happy living there.  Don't tempt him)