salon:">In his New York Times column Monday, Paul Krugman made what he claimed was an “obvious” point — that elections have consequences — but used the publication of the 2013 IRS tax tables as way to make that point concretely.
“If Mitt Romney had won,” Krugman argued, the tax rate for the top 1 percent and top 0.01 percent wouldn’t have gone up by 4 and 6.5 percent respectively. “[F]or top incomes, Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan’s as well.”
These higher rates generate approximately $70 billion a year in revenue, which is “in the same ballpark as both food stamps and budget office estimates of this year’s net outlays on Obamacare.”
Those who claim elections don’t have consequences just want Republicans to win
Paul Krugman shows us what life would’ve looked like had Obama lost in 2012
In his New York Times column Monday, Paul Krugman made what he claimed was an “obvious” point — that elections have consequences — but used the publication of the 2013 IRS tax tables as way to make that point concretely.
“If Mitt Romney had won,” Krugman argued, the tax rate for the top 1 percent and top 0.01 percent wouldn’t have gone up by 4 and 6.5 percent respectively. “[F]or top incomes, Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan’s as well.”
These higher rates generate approximately $70 billion a year in revenue, which is “in the same ballpark as both food stamps and budget office estimates of this year’s net outlays on Obamacare.”
Those who claim elections don’t have consequences just want Republicans to win