The All Time Right Wing Lie; Cutting Taxes For The Wealthy Generates Faster Economic Growth.
Manuel
2012/09/18 17:27:57
Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new and accurate report. But those tax cuts do is widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to this new report.
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is on real evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth. if you tax the rich more this is what causes job growth because they have to get out there a hustle up more jobs to make up the difference. If they get a tax break then the middle class and poor are taxed higher and lose more while the rich take it easy and get more for being lazy.
The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.
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 ( the Reagan years of trickled down Reaganomics).
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years. ( this is the only thing that trickled down)
Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.
"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a " negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.
Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? No. 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.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is on real evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth. if you tax the rich more this is what causes job growth because they have to get out there a hustle up more jobs to make up the difference. If they get a tax break then the middle class and poor are taxed higher and lose more while the rich take it easy and get more for being lazy.
The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.
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 ( the Reagan years of trickled down Reaganomics).
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years. ( this is the only thing that trickled down)
Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.
"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a " negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.
Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? No. 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.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.
Top Opinion
-
watusiwaldo 2012/09/18 18:21:25
there's your trickle down for ya.
as you see in the highlighted section, there is a a more sinister definition to anarchy than the one you seem to rely on. i would submit to you, with history as my witness, that when applied to a society, anarchy is nearly synonymous with chaos.
I do not have a proposal to eliminate all governments, I am of the opinion that while i can encourage a peaceful anarchy, it isn't something that can happen over night, anarchy by violent over throw of current governments will either end up in a state of chaos like somalia, or in a series of dictatorships. I believe that anarchy is an evolutionary phase in society, throughout history we go through periods of tyranny but we have been heading towards prosperity and freedom as a general rule, eventually that will lead to a society without borders, or a state.
The advantage you speak of is most commonly the reliance on someone else to protect you. for instance I grew up in a town of about 80,000 people, not huge but not small, we had "gangs" but we were a safe town not because of our police, but because 2 out of 5 people carried fire arms and would use them to defend those around them. The gangs at any point could have outnumbered the armed people in most groups(obviously not at the gun club) but they didn't attack people unless they had the clear advantage of being the only armed people in the area.
That being said I would gla...
I do not have a proposal to eliminate all governments, I am of the opinion that while i can encourage a peaceful anarchy, it isn't something that can happen over night, anarchy by violent over throw of current governments will either end up in a state of chaos like somalia, or in a series of dictatorships. I believe that anarchy is an evolutionary phase in society, throughout history we go through periods of tyranny but we have been heading towards prosperity and freedom as a general rule, eventually that will lead to a society without borders, or a state.
The advantage you speak of is most commonly the reliance on someone else to protect you. for instance I grew up in a town of about 80,000 people, not huge but not small, we had "gangs" but we were a safe town not because of our police, but because 2 out of 5 people carried fire arms and would use them to defend those around them. The gangs at any point could have outnumbered the armed people in most groups(obviously not at the gun club) but they didn't attack people unless they had the clear advantage of being the only armed people in the area.
That being said I would gladly trade state provided security for freedom, you cannot have on with the other. The more safe you want the government to make you, the less free you become.
Consumer Reports, as a somewhat free market company, does more to protect consumers than all the regulatory agencies in the world. There are plenty of people who don't want land, air, and water to be poisoned. If they weren't so foolish as to believe that government is preventing pollution when all the government in the world is still allowing and even enabling pollution, they would actually be motivated to do something that works to prevent pollution. For example, owners have a vested interest in not destroying their own property, so an obvious solution would be private ownership of all land, air, and water. Bureaucrats have no such vested interest, which is why government owned land and water is the most polluted land and water.
The solution is simply to disburse that power to everyone. You don't need a monopoly on violence to provide security any more than you need a monopoly on grocery stores to provide food. You don't need a monopoly on law making and law enforcement to keep society working any more than you need a monopoly on computer repair to keep computers working.
Cutting Taxes For The Wealthy Generates Faster Economic Growth for themselves.