The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

[Flaylo]

Jared Bernstein: The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.

Well rightwingers?

 

[SniperFire]

huffpo.

ROTFL

 

[Rocko]

Big time rich people are going to continue to do well no matter what the tax code is. The middle class, not so much.

 

[Flaylo]

huffpo.

ROTFL

Lets see your source and that wasn't written by HP, they hotlinked it from another site.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Jared Bernstein: The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.

Well rightwingers?

Here's another......

.....from August 5, 1996.

.....as-well-as Bill Clinton's....

.....batting-average!!!!

 

[Londoner]

The nation's most sustained economic growth was during the postwar years when taxes were over 70% on the highest bracket.

Tax money was used - along with other policies - to strengthen the economic solvency of the middle class. For example, when you use tax dollars to subsidize education, the effect is that middle class families have more money for consumption. When they spend more, the capitalist is forced to add jobs. It's called a virtuous cycle.

What Republicans don't understand is that the market will not pay workers enough to consume and drive the domestic economy. Walmart wants sweatshop labor costs - which is why they get all their manufacturing labor from China. Therefore you need a combination of tax and after-market policies to strengthen middle class demand. America's greatest economic growth occurred when we understood this logic. Unfortunately, special interests clogged the information system and convinced us to get rid of the middle class. Now there is not enough consumption to justify adding jobs. It's a toxic cycle.

 

[Truthmatters]

Big time rich people are going to continue to do well no matter what the tax code is. The middle class, not so much.

glad to see you coming to your senses

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The nation's most sustained economic growth was during the postwar years when taxes were over 70% on the highest bracket.

Tax money was used - along with other policies - to strengthen the economic solvency of the middle class. For example, when you use tax dollars to subsidize education, the effect is that middle class families have more money for consumption. When they spend more, the capitalist is forced to add jobs. It's called a virtuous cycle.

.....Not-to-mention.....Education being a LONG-TERM inve$tment (in our Country).....a concept long-ago lost, during the greed of the Bush Years.​

 

[KissMy]

My property taxes have been soaring 6 times faster than the economy. I am not rich. Gas taxes have jumped, people who drive to work are not rich. Stop using your tax the rich rhetoric to tax the poor.

 

[eflatminor]

There's a fatal flaw in this piece. When he states "In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit"

Let's for a moment assume he's correct, that an increase in the tax rates would result in an increase in revenue. While there's lots of evidence to suggest the exact opposite would be the case, let's pretend he's right about revenue going up after a tax rate increase.

The problem is that spending is so out of control that no tax rate increase could possibly produce enough additional revenue to actually REDUCE the deficit, much less our debt. The automatic increases planned in federal spending will far outweigh any increase in revenue, thereby further increasing deficits and debt. Hell, we could CONFISCATE all assets from America's richest citizens and we still couldn't close this year's deficit, much less attack the debt we've compiled. Bottom line, with the spending we're currently planning, a tax rate increase is not going to "reduce the budget deficit". No fucking way.

Besides, as Washington has shown us again and again, any time they get more revenue, it is never used to reduce the deficit, it is spent. Always!

So, I tell you what, you support real REDUCTIONS in federal spending now (not some future promise) and I'll support increasing taxes to help pay off debt. Deal?

 

[Flaylo]

My property taxes have been soaring 6 times faster than the economy. I am not rich. Gas taxes have jumped, people who drive to work are not rich. Stop using your tax the rich rhetoric to tax the poor.

Everybody is affect by gas and property tax your point being?

 

[Katzndogz]

The nation's most sustained economic growth was during the postwar years when taxes were over 70% on the highest bracket.

Tax money was used - along with other policies - to strengthen the economic solvency of the middle class. For example, when you use tax dollars to subsidize education, the effect is that middle class families have more money for consumption. When they spend more, the capitalist is forced to add jobs. It's called a virtuous cycle.

What Republicans don't understand is that the market will not pay workers enough to consume and drive the domestic economy. Walmart wants sweatshop labor costs - which is why they get all their manufacturing labor from China. Therefore you need a combination of tax and after-market policies to strengthen middle class demand. America's greatest economic growth occurred when we understood this logic. Unfortunately, special interests clogged the information system and convinced us to get rid of the middle class. Now there is not enough consumption to justify adding jobs. It's a toxic cycle.

In the postwar years, we did well in spite of high taxes. How could we not do well. Europe was reduced to a cinder, most of the industrial world had smashed industries right along with their cities. Japan was destroyed. Germany was in rubble and England was in the rubble that German made! 16 industrialized nations in West Europe had no infrastructure and no economy. As the last nation capable of producing anything at all, the United States had no competition.

Of course the tax policies weren't used to strengthen the economic solvency of the middle class. How ridiculous! Do you know absolutely nothing of history at all? The high taxes were necessary to recover from the war effort, reinvent and retool factories for peacetime. Then the taxes necessary to help Europe and Japan recover! How much did the Marshall Plan cost? Read it yourself.

http://www.ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/53.pdf

This doesn't even consider what we spent in Japan.

Everyone was buying stuff made in America because no one else was making anything. Now you have a sustained economic growth by virtue of circumstance. The circumstance being the only viable game in town.

 

[Wiseacre]

I read this stuff and have to laugh at the left wing bullshit. As if the Buffet Rule would generate enough revenue to pay for entitlement increaes, education, housing, infrastructure upgrades, and every other liberal issue. As if democrats wouldn't increase spending if they got more revenue instead of reducing the debt. Tell me, when did ANY democrat propose a spending freeze? Maybe I missed it, was there one fucking word about spending cuts?

 

[Flaylo]

Reducing federal spending is impossible, the country is growing population wise, more people more money must be spent because more people equals more problems as well.

 

[eflatminor]

Reducing federal spending is impossible.

And there you have it folks. The mentality that will end us. Oh well, it's not like the level of current spending, much less the planned increases, have put us into an untenable fiscal situation...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

What's $138,279 per taxpayer among friends?

 

[auditor0007]

Jared Bernstein: The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.

Well rightwingers?

You can't increase tax revenue by raising taxes. You can only increase tax revenue by cutting taxes. This is why it is imperative that we cut the tax rate to zero on everyone. Then tax revenue will increase dramatically. The more we cut taxes, the more tax revenue will increase. Everyone knows that this is just simple math. Less means more, so we need more of less. The first thing we should do is double down on the Bush tax cuts. Not only should they be made permanent, we should reduce them further so we can get closer to that zero rate. But the best thing would be to just cut all taxes to zero, because that would give us the biggest tax revenue increases much sooner.

 

[Jarhead]

Reducing federal spending is impossible, the country is growing population wise, more people more money must be spent because more people equals more problems as well.

huh?

More people mean more problems?

Let me tell you saomething....

I have many problems...as does everyone else.....but I certainly dont look at government for solutions.

But exactly how can more people mean more problems?

 

[Claudette]

Reducing federal spending is impossible.

And there you have it folks. The mentality that will end us. Oh well, it's not like the level of current spending, much less the planned increases, have put us into an untenable fiscal situation...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

What's $138,279 per taxpayer among friends?

I agree.

Most households operate on a budget. The Govt can do the same.

The Clowns in DC need to recognize that they can't continue to spend like money grows on a tree.

We are 17T in debt and counting. If thats not a wakeup call to those imbeciles than nothing is.

 

[Jarhead]

Jared Bernstein: The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.

Well rightwingers?

You can't increase tax revenue by raising taxes. You can only increase tax revenue by cutting taxes. This is why it is imperative that we cut the tax rate to zero on everyone. Then tax revenue will increase dramatically. The more we cut taxes, the more tax revenue will increase. Everyone knows that this is just simple math. Less means more, so we need more of less. The first thing we should do is double down on the Bush tax cuts. Not only should they be made permanent, we should reduce them further so we can get closer to that zero rate. But the best thing would be to just cut all taxes to zero, because that would give us the biggest tax revenue increases much sooner.

Here...let me help you.

A baseball team charges 25 for a game....they only sell 25% of the seats (1000 seat stadium)...giving therm revenue of 6,250

So they drop the price to $10...and now they sell 75% of the seats.....giving revenue of 7,500

So they decreased the price by 60% and it increased revenue by 20%

Not really that difficult to understand.

 

[Claudette]

Reducing federal spending is impossible, the country is growing population wise, more people more money must be spent because more people equals more problems as well.

huh?

More people mean more problems?

Let me tell you saomething....

I have many problems...as does everyone else.....but I certainly dont look at government for solutions.

But exactly how can more people mean more problems?

Let people HANDLE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. Jeeze.