How much should we tax the rich?

This is a fair question; I suppose the answer depends on what we want to do: optimize revenues or some other reason.
Of course there is a balance: tax them too much and they either leave or don’t invest further. Don’t tax them enough: well, you get what we have now.

But I acknowledge that the answer is complicated; I do know that the economy was better off under Clinton rates than under Bush rates.

Paul Krugman discusses this:

In the first part of the paper, D&S analyze the optimal tax rate on top earners. And they argue that this should be the rate that maximizes the revenue collected from these top earners — full stop. Why? Because if you’re trying to maximize any sort of aggregate welfare measure, it’s clear that a marginal dollar of income makes very little difference to the welfare of the wealthy, as compared with the difference it makes to the welfare of the poor and middle class. So to a first approximation policy should soak the rich for the maximum amount — not out of envy or a desire to punish, but simply to raise as much money as possible for other purposes.

And the answer is:

Using parameters based on the literature, D&S suggest that the optimal tax rate on the highest earners is in the vicinity of 70%.

Krugman anticipates some of the responses:

I hear the following arguments:

1. Theft! Tyranny! OK, I hear you. This can’t be argued on rational grounds; I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money, but whatever.

2. They’ll go Galt! This amounts to saying that D&S’s estimate of the “behavioral elasticity” is too low. Maybe, but they’re pretty careful about that, and your gut isn’t better than their econometrics.

(emphasis mine).

I love Paul Krugman; he doesn’t put up with their BS. The polyester pants set detests him.

Speaking of right wingers, check out this Fox News clip:

Is it a wonder that much of the rank and file Republican base is populated by delusional people?