• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth

cnbc-byline-and-rr-title-png-210454-png_052435.png
By Robert Frank | CNBC – 2 hours 22 minutes ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

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.

A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little 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.


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%, and fell to 70% in the 1960s and to a low of 28% in 1986.The top current rate is 35%.

The tax rate for capital gains was 25% in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35% in the 1970s, before coming down to 15% today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years.
[........]
The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."

In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."
 
Last edited:
So... Obama cut their taxes for no good purpose and added ~$800B to the debt by doing so.
You should be livid.
 
and more of the same is the GOP mantra. Both sides are ridiculous. And crooked. And stupid.


So... Obama cut their taxes for no good purpose and added ~$800B to the debt by doing so.
You should be livid.
 
So... Obama cut their taxes for no good purpose and added ~$800B to the debt by doing so.
You should be livid.
You have a Logic problem again.
Compounded now with a simple reading one.

Obama Extended the Bush Tax Cuts on BOTH the Rich and non-Rich (Compromised) so That the cuts, which ARE helpful to the middle/low wouldn't be taken away.
He didn't want to and still doesn't want to extend where they DON'T help. The rich.

IOW, this study is completely compatible with Obama's position and contrary (as specifically mentioned within) the Romney one.
 
Last edited:
You have a Logic problem again.
Not in the slightest, in any case whatsoever.

1: Obama did cut taxes for the rich.
2: Obama lowered revenue >$800B while doing it.
3: The majority of that $>800B comes from the lower tax rate on the rich -- these are, after all, GWB's tax cuts on the rich
4: Tax cuts on the rich do not help anyone (or so you say)
Thus:
Obama ran up >$800B in debt cutting taxes that did not help anyone -- that is, he did it for no good purpose.
 
Not in the slightest, in any case whatsoever.

1: Obama did cut taxes for the rich.
2: Obama lowered revenue >$800B while doing it.
3: The majority of that $>800B comes from the lower tax rate on the rich -- these are, after all, GWB's tax cuts on the rich
4: Tax cuts on the rich do not help anyone (or so you say)
Thus:
Obama ran up >$800B in debt cutting taxes that did not help anyone -- that is, he did it for no good purpose.

can you do that libertarian logic trick where you show that one equals two?
 
Last edited:
Why do we have 2 threads about the same thing.
 
Not in the slightest, in any case whatsoever.

1: Obama did cut taxes for the rich.
2: Obama lowered revenue >$800B while doing it.
3: The majority of that $>800B comes from the lower tax rate on the rich -- these are, after all, GWB's tax cuts on the rich
4: Tax cuts on the rich do not help anyone (or so you say)
Thus:
Obama ran up >$800B in debt cutting taxes that did not help anyone -- that is, he did it for no good purpose.
Until now One didn't know if you were not able to grasp the simplest concepts... or just plain posting DISHONESTLY in the service of partisan Hackery.
We now know.

No one said he didn't cut taxes for the rich. I specifically said he did ... and I said why. UNREFUTED and Unaddressed in your DISHONEST post. Your "Not in the slightest" is an Incoherent reply.

You DISHONESTLY, as always, cut off the great majority of my post in your 'quote' in which I explained this simple issue because you can't deal with it. It is, after all, common knowledge to most.

We really need someone on either side to look at your Dishonest/Disingenous posts.
They make sane discussion impossible. About the most extreme and goofy partisanship I've ever seen on the board.
 
Last edited:
Until now One didn't know if you were not able to grasp the simplest concepts... or just plain posting DISHONESTLY in the service of partisan Hackery.
We now know.
Yes.... We know that when you know you cannot refute apoint, you fade off into as homs.
Thank you making it clear there's no need to waste any more time on you.
 
Yes.... We know that when you know you cannot refute apoint, you fade off into as homs.
Thank you making it clear there's no need to waste any more time on you.
What "ad hom"?

I described Exactly what you did.
You DISHONESTLY cut off the vast majority of my postS, explaining Obama allowed (even Had to Compromise) the tax cuts for the rich to enable the ones for the middle/low.

In fact, it's the current debate as well and this non-partisan (look up the term) study now Romney's problem. The GOP wants to extend the tax cuts for the rich, and Obama ONLY for under 250k.
Try lying or deflecting it again.

You cannot answer and you continue Dishonestly 'quoting' me by quoting just a few words, and even then, not addressing the issue.
Instead substituting, ie, the Deficit, which is Not the issue here.
 
Last edited:
Hello

This is been proven over and over again. Trickle down economics is a fantasy and besides that it doesn't make sense.

Wolfman24
 
How We Pay Taxes: 11 Charts - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic
[.... .... .... ...]
ARE WE PAYING MORE THAN WE USED TO?

David Leonhardt and the graphics team from the Times put together this fascinating chart of effective tax rates -- that includes income, payroll, and everything else you pay to the feds -- across households, dating back to 1960. What they found is that tax rates have declined dramatically in the last 50 years for the very rich. The U.S. tax code is still progressive, but it's not nearly as progressive as it used to be. One reason that center-liberal softies like me argue that the rich can bear a heavier tax burden is that, for each of the last four decades, they've paid more and the economy has grown healthily. It's equally true that effective tax rates have declined for the poorest Americans, as well. [NYT]

taxmageddon.png
 
Every time it was tried, it worked.
:dunno:
You wanna start with the last, Bush II's 10% cut, (reaganomics II) and work your way back?

We could then go back to Reagonomics I, which crashed the market 6+ years into His term. 1987.
Thankfully it looked familiar the second time and I cashed on it.

That is, after about the same 6 years, the accumulated deficit overtakes the yearly unfunded stimulus.. and .. Blooey.
 
Last edited:
and more of the same is the GOP mantra. Both sides are ridiculous. And crooked. And stupid.

Not true. You may not like the positions but they are very different. Especially when it comes to corporate taxation which does not get enough scrutiny in my view.
 
There should be no tax cuts for any class. There should be no loop holes or exonerations for taxes either. Everyone should have to pay the sam amount if there is going to be an income tax, a flat tax rate. I'm for abolishing the income tax all together. Up until 1913 poeple were allowed to keep 100% of there income, yet there were still roads, there was still railroads, and hospitals. So why do we need an income tax?
 
There should be no tax cuts for any class. There should be no loop holes or exonerations for taxes either. Everyone should have to pay the sam amount if there is going to be an income tax, a flat tax rate. I'm for abolishing the income tax all together. Up until 1913 poeple were allowed to keep 100% of there income, yet there were still roads, there was still railroads, and hospitals. So why do we need an income tax?
Entitlement spending, designed to expand and consolidate the Dem voter base.
 
You should be entitled to what your work for, not what others work for.
 
So... Obama cut their taxes for no good purpose and added ~$800B to the debt by doing so.
You should be livid.

I am indeed. I am livid at the Grover Norquist inspired political culture which made this all possible.

I am livid at the radicals who have taken over government and seem to not understand that there are two sides to an accounting ledger.

And I am livid at President Obama for not having the good sense to realize he is fighting against people who have a whole different approach than his Marquees of Queensbury rules mindset.
 
Back
Top Bottom