I always try to leaven my posts with humour but scientists tell us that by 2050 some 30% of species in the planet will face extinction. They also say this can be substantially averted if the atmosphere returns to pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases. The measures that the diarist is calling for here, more jobs, more industrial development, are suicidal - they will aggravate the problem of climate change.

. . .because it implicitly accepts the premise that confiscatory tax rates are justifiable to pay for the welfare state, and that refraining from doing so is only justifiable if it actually results in more efficient use of that which is confiscated.

. . .like an explorer in hostile territory uses a hired guide to make their way around--they don't necessarily like it much, but the need for a somewhat common language requires putting up with irritants.

To a dyed in the wool conservative like Russell Kirk, most of these self-identified conservatives are just a species of authoritarian liberal.

I don't remember what if anything Kirk had to say about the appropriate level of taxation of income for the wealthy. I imagine him meditating on the nature of income (currency) and recognizing its need to flow to properly fulfill its place in the order of things. Attempts to stop this flow would be an affront to the conservative.

The correct answer to Vinteuil's objection is that 'rightists' have no objection to these taxes.

You can, independently, argue that a) taxing the rich is bad for the rest of us and/or b) taxing the rich is morally wrong because it violates the sanctity of property rights.  The two arguments may, of course, shade into one another insofar as you can also argue that c) violating the sanctity of property rights is bad for all of us (which is why they are usually strongly embedded in the moral system.)

Meanwhile the numbers suggest that "their" money actually consists largely of the productivity increases of American workers over the past thirty years or so. 

But let's not let numbers and facts cloud the purity of our hatred for those who point out that the producers of wealth & the owners of wealth aren't necessarily the same people.

Krugman said that respecting property rights isn't absolute, but rather one concern among many, and you told him to go choke on socks.

But all of this is academic. The point still stands that a 70% marginal rate, despite this little academic paper and Krugman's blog has precisely zero chance of happening in the US. We're currently in a 30+ yr. trend heading away from this that shows no signs of slowing.  

Now why can't you address points that aren't academic? part of my problem with conservatives is they always emphasize the same potential problems, regardless of circumstance.

The wealthy are, in reality and not in academia, sucking up all the income in this country that many people helped produce; meanwhile the majority are seeing declines in their income despite massively increasing their productivity.

Add to that that effective tax rates on the wealthy are at their lowest in 80 yrs. and consumers in this economy have no money.

Sounds like a good time to raise taxes on the wealthy to me. Why don't you stop worrying about potential looters and moochers, etc. and look at the actual problems?