Progressives Explain the Economy #1: How High taxes create jobs

[Sallow]

Wow this "you didn't build that speech" and Elizabeth Warren with that BS
where we are nothing without government holding our hand every step of the way.
This has really captured the hearts and minds of the Progressive mind...

What a joke.

Been that way since the beginning, Ace.

 

[Bfgrn]

What Republicans don't want anyone to know...

Report Suppressed By GOP: tax cuts for wealthy no effect on economic growth or jobs

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans have also tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center ever since the research organization declared that Mitt Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates by 20 percent while protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit was mathematically impossible. For years, conservatives have pressed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to factor in robust economic growth when it is asked to calculate the cost of tax cuts to the federal budget.

Congressional aides and outside economists said they were not aware of previous efforts to discredit a study from the research service.

“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts,” said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

more

 

[Rshermr]

You can not use economic theory with cf. He is a con tool, just a mindless con followint what he is told.
Now, he may have some issue with this. Take economic history:
Regan had a bad economy with over 7% unemployment when he took office. He camapaigned on supply side economics, promising that a major tax decrease would take care of the issue. And, he followed up with a huge tax decrease. Interestingly, dems and repubs in the congress helped him. So, 18 months later, unemployment had risen to 10.8%, and the deficit was growing alarmingly. Particularly to republicans. So, Reagan asked for and got 11 tax increases. And he borrowed like a drunk sailor. Took the revenue from borrowing and tax increases, and did stimulus spending. And damn, the economy got better. From the highest unemployment rate to date since the great depression, to low unemployment rates. Decreased the deficit, some. Of course, all the borrowing he did tripled the national debt. He did, after all, borrow more than all the presidents before him combined.
So, there you go, CF. A case where tax decreases led to a really, really bad economy. And where tax increases were a major part of providing the revenue to fix the economy. Inconvenient, eh.

Cmon, CF, you must have an example of a bad economy that was hurt by tax increases in the US, Or where a bad economy was helped by tax decreases in the US.

 

[Sallow]

Whatever is most comfortable for you

Keyboard works.

What's CF's theory on this?

Defense - Paid with by magic.
Infrastructure - Paid with by magic.
Court houses - Paid with by magic.
Bridges and Roads - Paid with by magic.

===or====

Somalia rules?

Not sure. Whether you are more of a hobbit theory kind of guy or an anarchist...

I just read 40 posts by Progressives pining openly for the days of 70 -90% tax rates, including Noble Prize Economist (LOL) Krugman and was wondering if any of you could explain how and why this works

I did it in post #7. I guess this is one of those moments that the old "You can lead a horse to water.." cliche comes to mind.

Only in this case..it's a "Crusader".

Tell the world, Johnny!

 

[Rshermr]

What Republicans don't want anyone to know...

Report Suppressed By GOP: tax cuts for wealthy no effect on economic growth or jobs

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans have also tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center ever since the research organization declared that Mitt Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates by 20 percent while protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit was mathematically impossible. For years, conservatives have pressed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to factor in robust economic growth when it is asked to calculate the cost of tax cuts to the federal budget.

Congressional aides and outside economists said they were not aware of previous efforts to discredit a study from the research service.

“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts,” said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

more

Yes, indeed. Excellent post. This was proof of the fact that cons are mindless followers of the conservative masters. Make the wealthy more so, and all will be well. And do not believe those nonpartial sources, even if we did commission the study.
And you con tools, just believe what we tell you. Never, ever question us.

 

[Rozman]

You Libs feel more money should go to government
no one is stopping you from handing all yours over.
I wonder how many of you have done that.
I wonder this tax season if any of you will write a check
to the IRS for an extra......let's say $5,000...

Until then bugger off with the raise taxes crap.

 

[Avorysuds]

So why does the economy suck under Obama?

 

[Oddball]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs]The Broken Window Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue =>

Not always. In fact, sometimes the exact opposite happens. Raise rates, lower revenue. But for purposes of this discussion, let's assume you are correct and revenues actually increase following an increase in tax rates...



First, the federal government has no authority to "repair, restore, create infrastructure", but for purposes of this argument, let's assume you're including states in your assessment...

Tell us exactly how goods will get to market faster. Fewer potholes to negotiate?



So fewer potholes makes markets safe and trusted? Hmm...

=> More Private Revenue

Really? Let's get this straight: You're saying if we take more money from our most productive citizens, run it through government bureaucracies, then spend it on infrastructure...more private revenue will be realized?

Wow.

I guess Jerry Brown's train will make everyone rich!

Open up the constitution.

Go to power of congress.

Check out congress' power to post roads, over commerce and defense.

And get back to me when you figure out that, yeah, the federal government has some very broad powers.

Wow, monumental fail there pal. I gave you the point for sake of argument that government did have that power. Now tell us again how fixing potholes makes everyone richer...

 

[Rshermr]

So why does the economy suck under Obama?

Simple enough. Not nearly enough stimulus for a downturn as deep as this one to eliminate the unemployment problem that we still have. By the way, the economy is not at all bad for corporations. Take a look at the market, and at the record earnings that they have been achieving over the past couple of years.

 

[eflatminor]

So why does the economy suck under Obama?

Simple enough. Not nearly enough stimulus...

Of course, we just don't spend enough of other people's money.

 

[Oddball]

So why does the economy suck under Obama?

Simple enough. Not nearly enough stimulus for a downturn as deep as this one to eliminate the unemployment problem that we still have. By the way, the economy is not at all bad for corporations. Take a look at the market, and at the record earnings that they have been achieving over the past couple of years.

Right...Throw some vestal virgins into the volcano to make the copra crop grow...If it grows then the sacrifice worked, if the crop doesn't come in that just proves you need to throw two or three more virgins into the volcano.

 

[PredFan]

What actually happens is:

Higher taxes => more spending on entitlements, payoffs, wasted programs in crony's districts=>lack of good working infastructure is kept unfunded so as to be used again fas an excuse to increase taxes more=>jobs go over seas to escape taxes=> jobs lost => more entitlements

need more?

Yeah...When do I get my free shit?

Your Obamaphone is in the mail.

 

[PredFan]

So why does the economy suck under Obama?

Simple enough. Not nearly enough stimulus for a downturn as deep as this one to eliminate the unemployment problem that we still have. By the way, the economy is not at all bad for corporations. Take a look at the market, and at the record earnings that they have been achieving over the past couple of years.

Right...Throw some vestal virgins into the volcano to make the copra crop grow...If it grows then the sacrifice worked, if the crop doesn't come in that just proves you need to throw two or three more virgins into the volcano.

I'm stealing this.

 

[Rozman]

Tax and spend Liberals....
good grief...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

I didn't think you were serious, but since you insist

So if higher taxes = higher revenues, countries with a 100% tax rate should be the richest

 

[Rozman]

All the Libs who want higher taxes should write a check this year to the IRS when they file their taxes.
Each one of you who want higher taxes should put your money where your yaps are and kick in an extra $1,000 or better yet $5,000...

You guys all talk the talk when you are out spending other peoples money...
You guys love your President and your country go ahead impress us and kick in a little extra...

 

[Rshermr]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

I didn't think you were serious, but since you insist

So if higher taxes = higher revenues, countries with a 100% tax rate should be the richest

Only if you are really, really stupid. No one suggested 100% tax rates. Not 50%. Just 39%. And only at the highest marginal rates. You know, like when Clinton was pres. If you check, the economy improved, the unemployment rate went to about 4%, the economy soared, and we had a deficit. I know this is kind of difficult for a con to argue with. You normally just believe what you are told, but try actually thinking. Though I suspect that is asking too much.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

I didn't think you were serious, but since you insist

So if higher taxes = higher revenues, countries with a 100% tax rate should be the richest

Only if you are really, really stupid. No one suggested 100% tax rates. Not 50%. Just 39%. And only at the highest marginal rates. You know, like when Clinton was pres. If you check, the economy improved, the unemployment rate went to about 4%, the economy soared, and we had a deficit. I know this is kind of difficult for a con to argue with. You normally just believe what you are told, but try actually thinking. Though I suspect that is asking too much.

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

 

[Rshermr]

I didn't think you were serious, but since you insist

So if higher taxes = higher revenues, countries with a 100% tax rate should be the richest

Only if you are really, really stupid. No one suggested 100% tax rates. Not 50%. Just 39%. And only at the highest marginal rates. You know, like when Clinton was pres. If you check, the economy improved, the unemployment rate went to about 4%, the economy soared, and we had a deficit. I know this is kind of difficult for a con to argue with. You normally just believe what you are told, but try actually thinking. Though I suspect that is asking too much.

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

So Crusader says:

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Ah, but I did not say that raising taxes would help the economy. Raising taxes is a tool. So, if you raise taxes and toss the money into a trust, and do nothing with it, then there would be little to no stimulus. But, here is the problem for you, CF. You are trying to simplify the problem. The problem is not tax rates but demand. And that means that you need to do something with the additional revenue that would result. Something stimulative of demand. So would 50% be better? Maybe, maybe not. But you see, CF, no one is suggesting 50% except you. Which is why I used 39%. For obvious reasons to most.

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

It did not. As I said, it was what was done with the revenue. It increased demand because it was used for stimulative spending. And if you know just a little about economics, you would understand why that increased employment.