Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don’t Spur Growth

[Incorruptible]

You are an idiot.

The higher taxes result in the rich finding new ways to hide there money

 

[Ldir]

Why such an arbitrary limit? Is it his fault someone else is willing to give him so much money? Seriously nonsense. They get it cause they have nothing pfft were supposed to be in it together, everyone should get it regardless or no one gets any at all. Such arbitrary lines you're OK with lol.

Thinking is hard for you. I am showing why EK's argument is dishonest.

 

[preslove]

The higher taxes result in the rich finding new ways to hide there money

In the idiot republican alternative universe, maybe. In the real world, with real history, with real budgets, higher taxes raise revenue. Bush's tax cuts are a major part of our deficit. If you can't grasp this simple, common sense, truth then you are beyond hope.

 

[Anarchist420]

In the idiot republican alternative universe, maybe. In the real world, with real history, with real budgets, higher taxes raise revenue. Bush's tax cuts are a major part of our deficit. If you can't grasp this simple, common sense, truth then you are beyond hope.

The irony coming from you is staggering. Why did Income tax revenues go up when Harding and coolidge kept reducing the top marginal rate, while even lowering all rates?

Didn't the white house admit that restoring the Clinton tax rates for the "wealthy" would give only 700bn over the next ten years? Didn't a "bipartisan" commission say that the bottom half benefitted more from the bush tax cuts than the the top 1% of income earners?

Fact: Capital gains taxes won't even be 300bn (less than 200bn if im not mistaken) in federal revenue for this current fiscal year. Raising it to 25% wouldnt nick a hole in the deficit, let alone the debt. Not only that, but it would probably only give 100bn at most rather than 200bn because of all the people who wouldn't pay them.

Finally, why would the assholes in congress raise taxes on themselves? Do you think theyre capable of caring about you? If they really sincerely wanted to "soak the rich" then they wouldve reinstated the federal real estate tax a long ass time ago except only exempted a lot more and made the marginal rates a lot higher.

I agree that the wealthy can be taxed more but not through increasing the top marginal income tax rate. I cant believe liberals like yourself are going around calling people smarter than yourself "idiots" when you can't even do basic math. You're just as irrational as the Christian Zionist neocons.

 

[Jhhnn]

The irony is amazing. Why did Income tax revenues go up when Harding and coolidge kept reducing the top marginal rate, while even lowering all rates?

Nah. your obfuscation & denial are amazing. Why did revenues go up when Clinton raised rates? Why did both Reagan &GHWB raise rates after they were initially cut drastically?

 

[werepossum]

The irony coming from you is staggering. Why did Income tax revenues go up when Harding and coolidge kept reducing the top marginal rate, while even lowering all rates?

Didn't the white house admit that restoring the Clinton tax rates for the "wealthy" would give only 700bn over the next ten years? Didn't a "bipartisan" commission say that the bottom half benefitted more from the bush tax cuts than the the top 1% of income earners?

Fact: Capital gains taxes won't even be 300bn (less than 200bn if im not mistaken) in federal revenue for this current fiscal year. Raising it to 25% wouldnt nick a hole in the deficit, let alone the debt. Not only that, but it would probably only give 100bn at most rather than 200bn because of all the people who wouldn't pay them.

Finally, why would the assholes in congress raise taxes on themselves? Do you think theyre capable of caring about you? If they really sincerely wanted to "soak the rich" then they wouldve reinstated the federal real estate tax a long ass time ago except only exempted a lot more and made the marginal rates a lot higher.

I agree that the wealthy can be taxed more but not through increasing the top marginal income tax rate. I cant believe liberals like yourself are going around calling people smarter than yourself "idiots" when you can't even do basic math. You're just as irrational as the Christian Zionist neocons.

Some good points. I don't agree with you that often, but you are a smart and remarkably well informed young man. I'll raise just two points. First, cutting taxes (especially at the top) historically led to more growth which led to higher government revenues, but that is no longer necessarily true across the board for at least two reasons. The inflation of the seventies and early eighties really hurt bankers, and the Fed, being composed of private sector bankers, are adamant that such runaway inflation not be allowed to happen again. They do this primarily by raising interest rates and tightening the money supply to keep growth low enough that inflation remains manageable. This makes it difficult, though not impossible, for tax cuts to yield higher tax revenue. (As a practical matter, I'd guess that any tax cut which depends on growth above four or five percent will produce lower tax revenue.) And of course, global arbitrage, the ease of global investing today, and our highly expensive network of bureaucracies, regulations, corporate taxes, and restrictions mean that the investment enabled by lower taxes (again, especially at the top) are increasingly outside of our borders, where there is little in the way of secondary revenue from workers and materials suppliers.

My second point is that the same problems of global arbitrage, the ease of global investing today, and our highly expensive network of bureaucracies, regulations, corporate taxes, and restrictions also mean that the old truism of "A rising tide lifts all boats" has to be taken with ever-increasing amounts of salt. If for instance wealthy Americans invest in things like foreign competitors to American-made products, their rising tide instead swamps some boats, especially the small, marginal boats (in this case allegorically representing those Americans whose skill sets are not equal to providing an equivalent standard of living under the new rules, primarily blue collar manufacturing workers but also those white collar workers for whom the decreased demand for services leads to lower wages.)

You are certainly correct that higher tax rates don't necessarily correspond to increased tax revenue, as some investments will no longer be economically viable. There are no easy answers to this mess we've built. I think in the end both higher taxes and lower spending are going to be required, but until we come up with a way to produce more than we consume, both together aren't going to be enough to save us from sliding into oblivion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now that we got it settled that tax cuts for the rich don’t spur growth. Let's move on to the question of how tax increases for the rich will spur economic growth, create jobs, and help the middle class.

 

[preslove]

Dumb rant that neglected to bring up Bush's or Reagan's tax cuts.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich in hopes to raise revenue. It didn't work. It led to a huge explosion in the deficit. Your idiotic rant even admitted that restoring Clinton era tax cuts would raise revenue.

You seriously have to be deluded to believe that cutting taxes raises revenue.

 

[dank69]

I like this part:

Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is “not strong” and may be “coincidental,” since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.

So two myths are killed in one study.

I like the part where you think the bolded above = definitely.

 

[Anarchist420]

Nah. your obfuscation & denial are amazing. Why did revenues go up when Clinton raised rates? Why did both Reagan &GHWB raise rates after they were initially cut drastically?

they didn't that much. Clinton didn't increase spending as quickly as his Republican predecessors did. Reagan didn't raise marginal income tax rates after cutting them, he reduced them more (kemp-Roth from 70% to 50%, then the reform act of 1986 cut the top marginal rate even further). Reagan raised/created tariffs, excise taxes, and the payroll tax the year after he reduced the top marginal rate. However, he never raised the top marginal income tax rate... quite the contrary, he only reduced it.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich in hopes to raise revenue. It didn't work. It led to a huge explosion in the deficit. Your idiotic rant even admitted that restoring Clinton era tax cuts would raise revenue.

You seriously have to be deluded to believe that cutting taxes raises revenue.

cutting marginal income tax rates makes little difference. My admission was that the revenue from raising the top marginal rate is so little that it makes no difference. If you want to get technical, then yes it would raise revenue, but my point was that 70bn increase from restoring the Clinton tax rates on high income earners is insignificant. That said, 70 billion added to 2.3 tn is mathematically insignificant.

Some good points. I don't agree with you that often, but you are a smart and remarkably well informed young man. I'll raise just two points. First, cutting taxes (especially at the top) historically led to more growth which led to higher government revenues, but that is no longer necessarily true across the board for at least two reasons. The inflation of the seventies and early eighties really hurt bankers, and the Fed, being composed of private sector bankers, are adamant that such runaway inflation not be allowed to happen again. They do this primarily by raising interest rates and tightening the money supply to keep growth low enough that inflation remains manageable. This makes it difficult, though not impossible, for tax cuts to yield higher tax revenue. (As a practical matter, I'd guess that any tax cut which depends on growth above four or five percent will produce lower tax revenue.) And of course, global arbitrage, the ease of global investing today, and our highly expensive network of bureaucracies, regulations, corporate taxes, and restrictions mean that the investment enabled by lower taxes (again, especially at the top) are increasingly outside of our borders, where there is little in the way of secondary revenue from workers and materials suppliers.

My second point is that the same problems of global arbitrage, the ease of global investing today, and our highly expensive network of bureaucracies, regulations, corporate taxes, and restrictions also mean that the old truism of "A rising tide lifts all boats" has to be taken with ever-increasing amounts of salt. If for instance wealthy Americans invest in things like foreign competitors to American-made products, their rising tide instead swamps some boats, especially the small, marginal boats (in this case allegorically representing those Americans whose skill sets are not equal to providing an equivalent standard of living under the new rules, primarily blue collar manufacturing workers but also those white collar workers for whom the decreased demand for services leads to lower wages.)

You are certainly correct that higher tax rates don't necessarily correspond to increased tax revenue, as some investments will no longer be economically viable. There are no easy answers to this mess we've built. I think in the end both higher taxes and lower spending are going to be required, but until we come up with a way to produce more than we consume, both together aren't going to be enough to save us from sliding into oblivion.

thanks raising tariffs would increase revenue, but then the govt would have more money and gm would have to pay a higher price for tires when it makes cars, but tariffs aren't as bad as the income tax. The current schedule of harmonized tariffs costs more to enforce than it gives the govt in revenue, because the rates are so low... and it's a barrier to entry for smaller companies to have to go through all of the red tape when they want to export things. If theyre going to have a harmonized tariff schedule, then they may as well raise the tariff rates but also add more income tax deductions and maybe reduce the payroll tax further.

 

[Atreus21]

You are an idiot.

Hey screw you too buddeh.