[sirchtruth]

Well then let's just tax the "RICH" into oblivion and we'll all be just fine!

[sirchtruth]

Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress

Just how "non-partisan" is the CRS?

[gdzla]

Where to begin................

[FoxInSocks]

Yes, despite all common sense and historical precedent, this must be true.

[svcw]

Non partisan - what a crock

[smoothsailing]

we could also tax the poor out of poverty while we’re at it.

[jwalsh07]

In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.

Good grief.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress “

ROTFLMFAO

[NoobRep]

History proves otherwise. Tax cuts for corporations and businesses allows them to reinvest in capital and grow the entire economy. Production=growth=something these hacks obviously have no concept of.

[Sooth2222]

The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.

How about between 1776 and 1913? No doubt growth was much better with 0% income tax rates than it is today.

[funfan]

Start with Hollywood 95% tax on all income over 250K
and let’s make it retroactive to say 2009. They won’t mind Eva Longoria says she wants to pay more so I say ye shall.
It’s for the Children

[Yashcheritsiy]

This study is silly.

First off, it would be ridiculous to expect tax cuts for the rich to spur BOTH productivity and investment. Indeed, if investment increased (i.e. new factories, facilities, etc.), then you would expect non-technology-related productivity to go down, because more people are being hired, instead of the same smaller number of people being expected to shoulder more and more of an increasing workload (which is what “increased productivity” is often a euphemism for).

[mo]

You could ask John F Kennedy

[griswold3]

It has long (since the 14th Century) been understood that raising taxes on the rich does not increase revenue.

It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.
‘Abd-ar-Rah.mân Abû Zayd ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406)’

More recent, See Hauser’s Law

[Fledermaus]

Pure propaganda.

[Ouderkirk]

<>Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

Since when is it the purpose of taxation to narrow the gap between the rich and the not? This is where the Marxists always fall flat and show their true colors.

Is the purpose of the tax code to raise revenue or is it to steal from the more well off? Obviously the left believes that latter. And therefore it is unjust (theft) by the very purpose as stated by the leftards

[pieceofthepuzzle]

This analogy has been used many times, but it's still appropriate. In the story of the three little pigs, the left would take the house made by the industrious hard-working pig, and give it to the lazy pigs who did nothing to help themselves. I honestly feel as though I've wasted my life to this point by working as many hours as I have. What was the point?

[Reverend Wright]

ok, so let me get this straight... according to liberals, taxing cigarettes reduces smoking, taxing gasoline reduces driving, taxing carbon will save the earth but raising income and capital gains taxes has no economic effect ?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If you tax ALL income (not just that of the rich) at 100%, we still have a gaping deficit. If taxing everybody at 100% does not solve the problem, taxing the rich at 100% does even less to solve the problem.

A heavily-graduated income tax is plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, but don't you DARE call them COMMUNISTS.

The Ten Planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
(and How Statists Implement Them)

1. Abolition of private property rights (via high property taxes, restrictive zoning laws, "fair housing" edicts, environmental and "wetlands" regulations, UN Agenda 21, etc.)

2. Institution of a heavily graduated income tax (by calling it "taxing the rich")

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance (through a confiscatory estate tax on "the rich")

4. Confiscation of the property of enemies of the state (through lawless application of asset forfeiture and eminent domain)

5. Centralization of credit into the hands of the state (Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, TARP, etc.)

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state (FCC, DOT, FEMA, etc.).

7. Consolidation and subjugation of all major industries to central government control (FDA, EPA, OSHA, ICC, NLRB, EEOC, etc.)

8. Mandatory labor union membership (public-sector unions, unionization of 21-million Obamacare health care workers, automatic withholding of forced union dues, "card check," etc.)

9. Equitable redistribution of all wealth (TANF, SSI, EITC, SNAP, etc.)

10. Free public education (and food and health care and cell phones and Internet access, etc.)

[Aevery_Freeman]

...but...but...Why aren't we all rich like we should be if taxes cause wealth.?

We should be pretty well off by now, don't you think?

[cripplecreek]

Tax cuts for the rich probably don’t spur growth as much as many would like to believe......HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean they’re bad.

If you really want to spur growth, combine those same tax cuts with the elimination of the tax on manufacturing, eliminate the ridiculous regulation on the same, produce cheap energy for industry, pass right to work laws.

Tax cuts for the rich just gives them money to invest elsewhere and who can blame them. Give them a reason to invest in America.