Economics

What a Top Liberal Economist Gets Right—and Wrong

The French economist hailed by Paul Krugman is better than you would expect.

|

Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is being hailed as "the most important economics book of the year—and maybe of the decade" by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. The Economist says the book may revolutionize "the way people think about the economic history of the past two centuries."

I've read it and can report that the book, issued by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press and translated into English by Arthur Goldhammer, both isn't as bad as you might think and is worse than you might think.

It's not as bad as you might think because there is quite a bit in the book that free-market, pro-growth types can embrace.

He concedes, for example, that "inequality is not necessarily bad in itself: the key question is to decide whether it is justified, whether there are reasons for it." Sounds reasonable enough.

He sounds a note of caution about high public debt: "From the standpoint of people with the means to lend to the government, it is obviously far more advantageous to lend to the state and receive interest on the loan for decades than to pay taxes without compensation."

He displays a healthy skepticism toward other professional academic and government economists, noting that, "In 1970, when Paul Samuelson published the eighth edition of his famous textbook, he was still predicting that the GDP of the Soviet Union might outstrip that of the United States sometime between 1990 and 2000."

He mentions that both Germany and Sweden have no national minimum wage law, something that many Americans are probably unaware of even as President Obama presses for an increase in our minimum wage. He concedes that "raising the minimum wage cannot continue indefinitely; as the minimum wage increases, the negative effects on the level of employment eventually win out."

Professor Piketty warns, wisely, that "inflation is hard to control: once it gets started, there is no guarantee that it can be stopped at 5 percent a year."

He concedes that "the tax and transfer systems" of modern governments "have a achieved a level of complexity that makes them difficult to understand and threatens to undermine their social and economic efficiency."

Most usefully, and substantively, Piketty explains how both fertility and immigration contribute to economic growth and, relatedly, to a reduction in inequality. "In a world in which each couple has ten children, it is clearly better as a general rule not to count too much on inherited wealth, because the family wealth will be divided by ten with each new generation," he writes. A new argument to convince the left to drop the contraceptive mandate from Obamacare?

So far, so good.

Where Piketty goes far off the rails is with his policy prescriptions and his justifications for them. He advocates sharply higher tax rates on both income and capital. For America, he recommends "a rate on the order of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 or $1 million a year," along with rates of "50 or 60 percent on incomes above $200,000."

In addition to that, he proposes a tax on capital of one percent a year on fortunes of about $1,380,000, increasing to an annual tax of five or 10 percent a year on fortunes of several hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. That would be enforced globally with new tax forms requiring everyone to disclose the value of all assets. On top of that, he raises the prospect of an "exceptional one-time" tax on capital to reduce sovereign debt in Europe.

Piketty writes that "confiscatory tax rates on income" were "an impressive U.S. innovation of the interwar years" that deserve to be "reconceived and revived."

How does Piketty justify, morally, what he concedes to be confiscation?

To me the weakest part of his argument is his assertion that the money he is proposing to tax, now in private hands, was stolen in the first place.

He writes, "the courts cannot resolve every case of ill-gotten gains or unjustified wealth. A tax on capital would be a less blunt and more systematic instrument for dealing with the question." After all, he writes, "Broadly speaking, the central fact is that the return on capital often inextricably combines elements of true entrepreneurial labor (an absolutely indispensible force for economic development), pure luck (one happens at the right moment to buy a promising asset at a good price), and outright theft."

Here Piketty is speaking "broadly" indeed, tarring as "outright" thieves anyone who has managed to amass a million dollars or so worth of assets, and proposing to deal with the problem not by enforcing the criminal laws against theft, but by taxing everyone. He acknowledges his own ignorance here—"To be frank, I know virtually nothing about exactly how Carlos Slim or Bill Gates became rich." Surely the decent thing would have been to have looked into the matter and learned something about it before tarring the two men as thieves and proposing to tax away billions of their fortunes as punishment for their supposed crimes.

There's much to learn from in this book, but much to beware, as well.

NEXT: Leader of U.K. Independence Party Praises Putin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dude, it is *far* beyond time to stop. calling. these. maggots. “liberals”.

    Call them collectivists, statists, slavers or leftoids–but to continue using the term “liberal” to describe idiots who advocate confiscatory taxation as an “enlightened social ideal”, is a bridge far too far.

    This bozo’s “progressive” economics are nothing but more of the same-old fallacious statist-collectivist-mercantilist crap.

    1. Libertarians are the real liberals.

  2. “Broadly speaking, the central fact is that the return on capital often inextricably combines elements of true entrepreneurial labor (an absolutely indispensible force for economic development), pure luck (one happens at the right moment to buy a promising asset at a good price), and outright theft.

    So we shall punish the lucky and the productive in hopes we punish a thief?

    ROFL!

    1. There’s a murderer on the loose in the village. The best way to catch that murderer is to round everyone up outside of town and execute them. /left logic

  3. For America, he recommends “a rate on the order of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 or $1 million a year,” along with rates of “50 or 60 percent on incomes above $200,000.”

    Welp, that’d be the end of my citizenship.

    1. Jesus, why would you ever risk your neck to start a business under such circumstances?

      1. “…by the French economist Thomas Piketty”

        So, a French economist thinks the world should be more like France.

        And yet, this was posted quite recently, “Since the creation of the Eurozone in 1999, France has only managed a 0.8 percent annual growth rate. Germany, by contrast, has grown three times faster over those 15 years.”

        High rates of taxation, an oppressive regulatory regime, a large government and yet a low rate of growth. Could there be a connection there? Hmm, I wonder.

        1. But how is the true quality of life?

          I’ll bet people are moving from Germany to France, because those extra costs are improving their standard of living.

          That’s what Tony was saying earlier today. 😉

          1. France is probably at the top of a list of places I’d rather live, if I could afford it.

            Since when do libertarians care about economic growth? What determines when you guys jump in to be conscious of macroeconomic social concerns?

            1. Tony|3.31.14 @ 5:59PM|#
              …”What determines when you guys jump in to be conscious of macroeconomic social concerns?”

              It has to do with “principles”, scumbag, and a moral infant like you is not capable of understanding the issue.
              Please leave the discussion to the adults.

              1. Really because it seems very much like it has exactly to do with a lack of principles.

                1. More like your lack of reading comprehension and ability to formulate an argument.

                2. Tony|3.31.14 @ 6:06PM|#
                  “Really because it seems very much like it has exactly to do with a lack of principles.”

                  As I explained, moral infants are no equipped to understand the issue.
                  Please leave the discussion to the adults.

            2. Re: Tony,

              France is probably at the top of a list of places I’d rather live, if I could afford it.

              Why can’t you afford it? I thought they had affordable healthcare and shit.

              Since when do libertarians care about economic growth?

              You mean we don’t?

              That’s a first. Nobody has ever accused a libertarian of not caring about economic growth.

              What determines when you guys jump in to be conscious of macroeconomic social concerns [sic]?

              This is pure gobbledygook. What does that even mean?

            3. Tony:

              France is probably at the top of a list of places I’d rather live, if I could afford it.

              Sounds like you’re making the point for us.

            4. “If I could afford it” while the young and ambitious are voting with their feet.

              But since Tony can’t afford it, he wants to make the country he does live in unaffordable too.

              I guess that just about sums up statist logic in a nutshell.

            5. Tony:

              “France is probably at the top of a list of places I’d rather live, if I could afford it.”

              You mean after you pay 50% to 80% in income tax you wouldn’t be able to afford it ? Why is that Tony ? It’s a socialist utopia. Everyone should be able to afford it.

              When you can answer that question honesty to yourself in the mirror you will be able to steal the pebbles from my hand grasshopper and you will be ready to go forth into the world.

              Until then you would be better off lurking here and reading more econ from people who know that Krugman is a political hack and not an honest economist.

              1. People are not leaving France.

                They’re escaping it.

            6. France is probably at the top of a list of places I’d rather live, if I could afford it

              This statement is why I think Tony is a hack and not a real progressive. He purposely is trying to bring out the worst in progressive views.

              I cannot believe anyone can be as stupid as the person who posts as Tony. So many contradictions and straw men…. W

        2. You nailed it.

    2. And pretty much anyone who makes that kind of income.

      I mean, why bother working if the government is taking 80%? Work a little bit and spend the rest of the time figuring out how to avoid or evade taxes — or just emigrate.

      1. Another important issue is that relatively few people make very high incomes year after year. Most of the people in those very high brackets are there only briefly.

    3. I think the tax on renouncing American citizenship is pretty steep, I think something like 30% of assets above some amount.

      1. There’s a tax on renouncing American citizenship?

          1. “Your” wealth belongs to the state, not you. Now file your forms for the next ten years even though you’re no longer our citizen and we shouldn’t have jurisdiction or power over you from the moment you renounce your citizenship.

            True fact: The colonists were required to pay taxes to Mother England after the Revolution…. sorry, can’t keep a straight face.

          2. I read this as saying that renunciation triggers capital gains or losses for income tax purposes as if all assets were sold, with a $600,000 (adjusted for inflation) exclusion.

  4. And why would I ever pay it?

  5. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is being hailed as “the most important economics book of the year?and maybe of the decade” by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.

    Oh, my God. That is not much of an endorsement. ?Ya no me ayudes, compadre!

    If I were Piketty, I would sue Krugman for libel!

  6. Whats with all the Frenchy stuff today? I say less cheese eating surrender monkeys and more shotguns and big titties…

    http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/x…..i-202.html

  7. He [Piketty] advocates sharply higher tax rates on both income and capital.

    Because people are still too productive for their own good! We need less economic activity! (Or more and cleverer tax evasion, take your pick.)

    He writes, “[…] A tax on capital would be a less blunt and more systematic instrument for dealing with the question [of ill-gotten income].”

    Yes, the same way cutting everybody’s hands solves the problem of prosecuting all those future burglary charges! It will also put an end to the scourge of masturbation as a happy by-product!

    See? Fairness!

    After all, he writes, “Broadly speaking, the central fact is that the return on capital often inextricably combines elements of true entrepreneurial labor (an absolutely indispensible [sic] force for economic development), pure luck (one happens at the right moment to buy a promising asset at a good price), and outright theft.”

    But he’s just an economist and not a detective, so he has no time to spare to separate which one is which so let’s castigate them all and let God sort them out.

    I am always reminded by these liberals of just how evil they are.

    1. You should be well aware of what nonsense it is to define “wealthy” as equal to “productive.”

      1. I’m pretty sure that capital is pretty congruent with the means of production. But then again, I don’t know that anyone defined wealthy that way. I’m pretty sure, though, that one of the reasons people are productive is in the hopes of becoming wealthy.

      2. Re: Tony,

        You should be well aware of what nonsense it is to define “wealthy” as equal to “productive.”

        Just stating that I should be aware of how nonsensical is my definition without presenting your definition for evaluation is, in itself, nonsense.

        1. You’re just mad I caught you in your wealth-apologist doublespeak. Why do you care who’s productive anyway? All of a sudden we should step our toes outside of the anarchic paradise you advocate and start concerning ourselves with whether people are productive, then reward them on that basis?

          Or are you just a crotchety talking parrot who doesn’t actually know what he believes beyond government and taxes are bad?

          Productivity is measured by economists, and while it has increased across the workforce, almost all the new wealth it produced has gone into the hands of a tiny few, as if the system were deliberately designed that way.

          And you’re the man holding the sign defending that system to the death.

    2. libertarian hellholes like sweden, denmark, norway and switzerland have higher per capita incomes, more progressivity in their tax codes, and distribute incomes more equitably than in the united states, which still has pockets of astounding poverty.

      1. Well, no they don’t. The US is at the top of the list in terms of per capita disposable income. Check on Wikipedia. Of the bunch, Norway beats the US on per capita GDP slightly, largely due to oil revenues, but then makes up for it with a bigger tax burden.

        Switzerland actually has very low taxes (13% top marginal rate at the federal level), is fiscally conservative, and at least used to have fairly minimal government welfare programs. On the other hand, the US has some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world on wealthy people, but has lower taxes on the middle class than most European countries.

        By US standards, many of those countries have high poverty rates, but because they measure poverty relative to their lower median incomes, their rates seem lower.

        And those numbers don’t even take into account the high sales taxes and the other features of those societies that will drain your pockets.

        You may think that Europe is a successful left wing paradise, but that’s a myth. Europe imposes high taxes on the middle class and delivers much lower standards of living and much less economic growth in return. Social conservatives also have a large say in European politics, with Christianity being the declared basis of government in several European nations, and gay marriage being outlawed in several more.

        1. It doesn’t matter how many times you point out facts about the oil wealth of Scandinavia, or whatever else, and he will continue on with the same arguments as if no new infomration were presented. Committed to socialism= eternal cognitive dissonance

      2. So you’re saying we should exile all our blacks, so we can be more like those lily-white countries? Is that it, Adolf?

  8. Yeah, luck. Here is the thing about that. If luck is a random process, then it should, in the end, balance out. On average, people will have good luck about as often as bad luck, so it’s a wash. But if luck isn’t random, if “luck smiles on someone”, then there must be some reason for “luck” to favor that person. In other words, they are doing something right, something that puts themselves in advantageous situations more often than not, and more often than others. When that becomes a trend, it ain’t luck anymore. The bottom line is, you have to earn it. So screw luck as a justification for hating the successful.

  9. Oh, and this is good for a laugh:

    On top of that, he raises the prospect of an “exceptional one-time” tax on capital to reduce sovereign debt in Europe.

    Yeah, right, just this one time. After that, they promise to learn from their mistakes and live within their means, and never come for your savings again.

  10. How does Piketty justify, morally, what he concedes to be confiscation?

    It’s easier than you think. People should be disincentivized from amassing huge fortunes because the inevitable consequences of too much wealth concentration are all bad.

    Libertarianism bizarrely fixates on the immorality of taxation while seeming not to give the slightest shit about the well-being of most people. It’s a very limited moral code.

    1. Tony|3.31.14 @ 5:55PM|#
      …”the inevitable consequences of too much wealth concentration are all bad.”

      You’re full of shit.

    2. Do you want to provide any supporting evidence for that screed you just wrote? Both sentences: citation needed.

    3. Re: Tony,

      It’s easier than you think[…]

      “[…] if you’re an amoral sociopath. Easy-piecy.”

      People should be disincentivized from amassing huge fortunes because the inevitable consequences of too much wealth concentration are all bad.

      Whereas the inevitable consequences of too little wealth concentration are all good.

      With that kind of logic, no wonder socialism always delivers!

      Libertarianism bizarrely fixates on the immorality of taxation while seeming not to give the slightest shit about the well-being of most people.

      An interesting proposal considering that taxation does NOT result in “well-being for most people”. So even if libertarians gave no thought to the well-being of other people, that in itself does NOT justify taxation.

      1. I disagree. Taxation pays for a lot of stuff that improves the quality of lives of people.

        I realize your ears are deaf to these points because you actually aren’t concerned with anyone’s well-being and don’t think society should be either.

        1. Tony|4.1.14 @ 10:42AM|#
          “I disagree. Taxation pays for a lot of stuff that improves the quality of lives of people.”

          And the mafia lives well on stolen money, too.

    4. Tony:

      “Libertarianism bizarrely fixates on the immorality of taxation while seeming not to give the slightest shit about the well-being of most people. ”

      Most people would be better off if they could keep more of the money they earn. Even though just having more money alone doesn’t make people more happy than they were before. Look at the history of lotto winners. The happiness comes from accomplishment and building something oneself. The urge to do so is lessened when the rewards are limited by people like yourself who want to use government to steal the results of one’s accomplishments for themselves.

      If you pass the bar and work for a few years you will begin to understand what I have written. People are better off when what they have they have earned for themselves Tony.

      There is and old saying that if you aren’t a liberal in your twenties you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative by your forties you have no brain.

      1. If taxes are your biggest problem, then you probably have a lot of money. When are libertarians going to concern themselves with the interests of people who don’t have a lot of money? Never–because then you’d cease to have a purpose in life.

        1. Tony|4.1.14 @ 10:41AM|#
          “If taxes are your biggest problem, then you probably have a lot of money. When are libertarians going to concern themselves with the interests of people who don’t have a lot of money?”

          A supposedly educated person would be well familiar with the concept of ‘non-sequiter’.
          Lefty imbeciles like you, however, just keep repeating them.

    5. Libertarianism fixates on the harm that taxation does to the well-being of most people and society; it considers taxation immoral because it causes such harm.

      As for the “inevitable consequences of too much wealth concentration”, the fact that people like Jobs, Gates, or Soros are insanely rich has never bothered me or hurt me. The fact that my taxes have gone up several percentage points to hand money to various corporate cronies of both Democrats and Republicans, on the other hand, has hurt me quite a bit.

    6. So you agree that taxes are a disincentive to work?

      What would happen to all that productivity if government took most of it by force just to avoid the scourge of amassing huge fortunes? People would just continue to toil away without compensation? Who knows maybe Bill Gates would have created Microsoft for $50K/year. Not sure what version of Windows would be out now with a $5,000 development budget.

      Would the poor you pretend to care about be better off by having to wait 6 months for subsidies because they were still using paper forms, filled out in triplicate since folks like you decided Bill Gates amassing a huge fortune was inherently bad.

      1. Somehow we made it through the 50s and nobody went Galt and the country became the wealthiest and most widely prosperous society in the history of earth. With tax rates on high incomes upwards of 70%.

        1. Tony|4.1.14 @ 10:39AM|#
          …”With tax rates on high incomes upwards of 70%.”

          And actual rates far below 50%, dipshit.

        2. So raising tax rates to 70% would have no effect on productivity then?

    7. Holy shit, Tony. I know you’re insipid but this….this is just plain…retarded.

  11. …”To be frank, I know virtually nothing about exactly how […] Bill Gates became rich.”…

    So rather than do a modicum of research (he’s probably writing in Word), he simply suggests stealing the money.
    That man is not to be taken seriously.

    1. Seriously, how is it possible for an economist in the West to not know how Gates became rich?

    2. bill gates has repeatedly called for his taxes to be increased, moron. maybe he knows something you don’t.

      1. bill gates has repeatedly called for his taxes to be increased, moron. maybe he knows something you don’t.

        Yes, he knows he not going to have to pay them.

      2. He can pay extra if he wants. Sanctimonious bullshit from Bill and yourself.

  12. Notice that the sockpuppet only appears whenever Reason talks about liberal economics or one of the liberal’s favorite subjects like minimum wage, the safety net and so on, but makes himself scarce whenever the topic is about government abuse of its power especially in cases where licensing laws stifle competition and create an onerous barrier-to-entry for minorities, or regulations stop companies like Uber from operating in most cities, or how the FDA kills people – oh, no. He only defends his favorite impositions on moral grounds.

  13. my friend’s mom makes $62 hourly on the laptop . She has been laid off for nine months but last month her paycheck was $18955 just working on the laptop for a few hours. learn the facts here now………..
    http://www.Works23.us

    1. According to Piketty, your friend’s mom is a thief.

  14. Does the book contain anything aside from naked assertions?

    1. If not I hope it’s a picture book.

      1. *raises eyebrow

  15. I know quite a few French people my age who bitch about America and our capitalist system but when prodded, they will admit that they left France beause of the cost of living, high taxes, and unemployment.

    1. EdWuncler|3.31.14 @ 7:41PM|#
      “I know quite a few French people my age who bitch about America…”

      I’m quite familiar with some ex-pat Canucks who whine about various aspects of US culture, but somehow can’t find their way north again…
      One in particular is in the medical bizz and was very critical of the US med system, oh, 8-10 years ago (before her mother needed critical care in Canada) and now no longer makes nasty noises and also can’t quite get on that plane.
      Stated-vs-revealed preferences.

      1. Sevo. very few Canucks, once they leave the little nest, ever want go back.

        My friend worked for three years in Connecticut but had to come back because his visa expired.

        He’s been depressed ever since.

        Smug Canadians and Europeans can go fuck themselves because they know…they know.

    2. William Bernstein was on the Bryan Callen podcast talking about his book in which he identified rule of law, property rights, availability of capital as crucial to becoming a wealthy nation. But then he turned around and said that that’s all well and good or other countries, but the US should be more socialist. Then he went on about how glad he is that the FAA exists to keep all the planes from falling out if te sky and how Milton Friedman would have planes crashing all the time with massive deaths as part of “creative destruction.” Followed that up with a story about how the U.S. gov’t almost accidentally nuked all of North Carolina. Never connected the dots. Even when they know better, these people are so afraid to not belong to the “liberal” tribe.

  16. I think I saw this guy feeding the pigeons on the Seine last year. Mark me ‘not impressed’.

  17. Every time I see the “The Rich Should BE Taxed More Heavily” argument, I have to wonder what it is that the rich do with their money that the people making the argument think is more of a waste than what the Government will do with it.

    1. The rich are already taxed very heavily in the US. Federal, state, and local tax amount to a top marginal tax rate of more than 55%, which is near the top among all countries in the world.

      The people who are not taxed as much in the US as elsewhere are the middle class.

  18. million dollars in the bank doesn’t equal a million dollars in annual income. i love the arguments in the comments section– effectively, oh how in the world will we get through the night without these rich masters of the universe who monetize mortgage foreclosures, trade stocks online with other computers, and sell Iphone apps for a couple of billion dollars so you can send dissappearing dick pictures to your boyfriend. oh, how will we get by?

    i love the other comments about all the canadians and french people just itching to experience the crumbling infrastructure, crime, and basket case politics of this rapidly expiring empire. i deal with europeans on a personal basis all the time. about half of them are virulently anti-american and certainly wouldn’t want any part of living here. why would you trade a modern, first world social democracy for a second rate corporatocracy?

    1. So you are a sophomore in college mortgaging your future studying leftist poetry or something. I’d be pissed, too.

    2. As usual, your mindless screeds are nothing but a poorly written collection of anecdotes almost wholly devoid of meaningful fact.

      Seriously, why do you even bother?

    3. Your comments are premised on the assumption that things work better in places like France. You should check some statistics and perhaps travel there some time. People are not doing well economically in France, the infrastructure isn’t so hot, and disposable incomes are much lower than in the US. The fact that many Europeans are as naive and ill-informed as you about it doesn’t change economic realities.

    4. AS, yes, I visit Europe often as well. Here’s my take: They’re shallow idiots.

      Crumbling infrastructure is happening across the West sorry to break the news pal.

      That ‘first world social democracy’ you speak highly of AS (and I’m Canadian) is horseshit mythology. It’s actually organized chaos.

      Stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

      Smart Europeans and Canadians know better.

  19. As a Canadian I want to ask our American friends to ignore th statist whiners when they expel gas from the north.
    My wife is fond of telling people that if America were to invade Canada, I’d be the first person on the road cheering it on. I would welcome the opportunity to be part of your great nation, for good or for ill.
    If I could make a suggestion, when you get here, ship all the whiners to Quebec and build a wall.

  20. Lets get them boys rollin over there.

    http://www.GotzAnon.tk

  21. How does Piketty justify, morally, what he concedes to be confiscation?

    Also, how can he justify confiscation in light of how corrupt and inefficient the state (any state) is? We’ll have efficient, rational state finances (without massive deficits) when we increase revenue through heavier tax burdens? Really? REALLY? Or, maybe that’s not ever the goal. Possibly the goal is to strip power and reallocate it to preferred in-groups. And, by in-group I mean people Piketty likes verses those he dislikes.

  22. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who advocates for taxes on income and capital is a fool; asshole even.

    It’s the main mechanism to accumulating wealth not just for the rich but all people/investors.

    It’s an evil position to take I dare add.

    1. Eating food is a primary mechanism for poor people to accumulate calories, which I dare say might be a more fundamental need than capital gains, yet that’s taxed.

      The reason income taxes exist is to counter all the regressive taxes out there. You actually want to tax the poor more than the rich, when it’s all said and done. Who’s evil now?

      1. Tony|4.1.14 @ 10:36AM|#
        “Eating food is a primary mechanism for poor people to accumulate calories, which I dare say might be a more fundamental need than capital gains, yet that’s taxed.”

        So, fuckwit, because one portion of tax law is screwed, we should screw up the rest?
        I’m glad you have very little real power; assholes like you could kill people and have.

  23. So Piketty talks about “inequality is not necessarily bad in itself: the key question is to decide whether it is justified, whether there are reasons for it” and later talks about “unjustified wealth”.

    So really… it’s all about getting someone’s permission, someone’s blessing for being successful. If you don’t succeed in an approved way, then you have to give all your money to someone else.

  24. If there is any case where the immorality of taxes is inarguable, it’s when they are “confiscatory”.

    Therefore, this man is evil.

    QED.

  25. Pomperipossa in Monismania.

    In the form of a fairy tale, the famous Swedish author of books for children Astrid Lindgren described how she, a Sole Proprietor was forced to pay a tax of 102% of her income.

    It’s an informative read and, I believe, apropos…

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ?????
    ?????????????? ? w?w?w.?w?o?rk?b?a?rr.c?o??m

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.