Repug states shifting taxes from wealthy and corps to the 45%

[boutons_deux]

link? Becuase he doesn't say that in the story I posted.

Krugman = hypocrite.

He started out by saying he was against VAT as regressive, then said he could stomach it if it were offset by universal health care and pension improvements.

[coyotes_geek]

Article referencing Krugman's support for a VAT for defecit reduction.......

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/reti...tune/index.htm

[boutons_deux]

Article referencing Krugman's support for a VAT for defecit reduction.......

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/reti...tune/index.htm

"VAT is coming. Krugman likes the idea, though he says the middle class will pay more. "There's probably a value-added tax in our future," he writes."

BUT that cherry picking doesn't quote Krugman saying he supports VAT with no offsetting benefits for the lower/middle class.

[Th'Pusher]

I think what Krugman does not support is a VAT as a subs ute for a more progressive income tax. That really the point, the. Governors are replacing revenue by elimanting progressive tax with a much more regressive tax. I'm not really sure how that can be debated.

[boutons_deux]

I think what Krugman does not support is a VAT as a subs ute for a more progressive income tax. That really the point, the. Governors are replacing revenue by elimanting progressive tax with a much more regressive tax. I'm not really sure how that can be debated.

It can be debated, SERIOUSLY.

The Repug politicians in those states make it extremely clear what they are doing, and it's 100% coherent with Bishop Gecko's 47% bull , and Ryan putting that up to 60%.

Repug Class Warriors protect/enrich the "makers", and as hard as possible the "takers".

[coyotes_geek]

"VAT is coming. Krugman likes the idea, though he says the middle class will pay more. "There's probably a value-added tax in our future," he writes."

BUT that doesn't cherry picking doesn't quote Krugman saying he supports VAT with no offsetting benefits for the lower/middle class.

So? Aren't lower and middle classes going to benefit from whatever Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas are going to spend that sales tax money on?

[Th'Pusher]

So? Aren't lower and middle classes going to benefit from whatever Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas are going to spend that sales tax money on?

But this is not a matter of spending tax revenue. It is a matter of what form the revenue is collected. They are proposing fmoving from a progressive income tax collection method to a more regressive sales tax collection method. By definition you are shifting the tax burden downward.

[coyotes_geek]

But this is not a matter of spending tax revenue. It is a matter of what form the revenue is collected. They are proposing fmoving from a progressive income tax collection method to a more regressive sales tax collection method. By definition you are shifting the tax burden downward.

Right. I'm not arguing that. I'm calling out Krugman for being a hypocrite.

[admiralsnackbar]

So? Aren't lower and middle classes going to benefit from whatever Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas are going to spend that sales tax money on?

The poor can't really eat schools or the infrastructure LA still hasn't addressed since Katrina.

I'm not fond of Krugman, but I guess I don't understand how he's being a hypocrite in this particular scenario.

[boutons_deux]

So? Aren't lower and middle classes going to benefit from whatever Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas are going to spend that sales tax money on?

Very probably not.

Like RickyBobby, any state surplus will be used for more tax expenditures for business, not to help the poor.

The Randian Repug sociopaths punish the takers for being poor every chance they get.

That hateful spirit is very alive in ST's right-wingbats.