[sirchtruth]

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

[uncommonsense]

Increasing costs spurs growth... so that's how it works!

[sirchtruth]

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

Is this article a figgin parody?! Everything claimed in this word arranging B.S. is the exact opposite of reality!

Sheer stupidity!

[kcvl]

Congressional Research Service Wrongly Implies Lower Tax Rates Don’t Strengthen Economy

Curtis DubaySeptember 17, 2012

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) set out to make a convincing case that lower income tax rates do not strengthen the economy. It failed, but in so doing, it called into question the quality of CRS analysis and the institution’s credibility as non-partisan.

The CRS is supposed to provide expert, objective, non-partisan research analysis to Congress. Most of the time, the CRS performs this function admirably and diligently; the longstanding episodic exception has been in tax policy. The most recent example of this partisan divergence is a report setting out to do the impossible: use historical data to argue that lower rates do not encourage stronger economic growth and, by implication, that higher marginal tax rates such as those espoused by President Obama do not discourage economic growth.

The CRS report presents a slew of periods between 1945 and 2010 comparing the top marginal income tax rates and capital gains rates with economic growth rates. From these correlations the author concludes that lower rates do not correlate with stronger economic growth.

In fact, these stylistic correlations prove nothing. In short, the economy is more complicated than this simplistic approach can acknowledge. For the analysis to prove anything, it needed to account for countless other economic and policy factors, many specific to a given period, and determine how those factors influenced economic growth in the period in question. With this as background, the analysis would then have to isolate the effect lower rates had on growth.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/17/congressional-research-service-wrongly-implies-lower-tax-rates-dont-strengthen-economy/

[RoosterRedux]

What this argument fails to incorporate is that it isn't a matter of whose wealth is taxed. It is a matter of pulling capital out of an economy.

The rich don't put their wealth in their mattresses...it is reinvested with or lent to others.

So when taxes are increased on the so-called rich, the rich don't suffer. The capital to pay for the taxes is taken from those who want to borrow it or from those whose projects need it as investment.

As a Socialist/Communist/Collectivist, Obama doesn't understand this. His is a linear world in which he must take away from some to give to others. Obama wants the wealthy to suffer so that the poor can thrive. That never happens, but that false concept of "fairness" is dominant in Communism.

Communism doesn't work because it ignores the human desire to create. Communism doesn't work because it destroys the human desire and will to create.

Communism is a war on creativity and invention...it is a war on individual humanity.

Communism is a hive mentality!

[econjack]

First of all, where in the history of the United States was there a tax cut just for the rich? An a priori test of what's being jokingly referred to as research can't even form a testable hypothesis due to the compound effects of tax cuts at other brackets. Looking at savings rates in isolation is also a joke, since it is additional demand for goods and services associated with a tax cut that spurs growth, not increased savings. (The assumption, I guess, is that increased savings leads to more capital formation. This does no good unless that new capital is plowed back into the system as investment, and that only occurs if demand is rising. What fool invests in plant and equipment when he has 40% idle capacity as it is?) If I had any of these clowns in my econ class, they'd have to retake the course before I'd unleash them on the next econ course.

[evad]

I see..

BAD=Letting the rich keep their own money

GOOD=Giving the rich people's money to the government

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So much for the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.

Must have been a right-wing fantasy.

[Raycpa]

But the Bush tax cuts were for everyone.

[LibLieSlayer]

IT WORKS EVERYTIME IT IS TRIED... UNLIKE keynesian economics WHICH FAILS EVERYTIME IT IS TRIED. This is a non partisan group just like NBC, CBS and ABC are non partisan and unbiased.

LLS

[The Great RJ]

Hauser’s Law shows that tax revenue as per cent of GDP is virtually constant at 19% regardless of the highest marginal tax rate. Even the 90% rates on the highest tax bracket in the 1950s, tax revenue was still just 19% of GDP. To increase tax revenue it is necessary to grow the GDP.
.

[pacpam]

Tax rates when it was 70% doesn’t equate to taxes paid. Only to study rates is illogical.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth...and increasing taxes on them does what?......