The Economic Impact of Raising Taxes on High-Income Households

[Mr.Nick]

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?

The wealthy would just offset that loss of revenue with firing or limiting the hiring of potential job positions....

Of course your totalitarian communist ass wants everyone working for the government....

You want capitalism and the free market destroyed .....

That's exactly what taxing the rich at a higher rate does.... Hell considering taxing the rich at a higher rate kills jobs, in effect it also destroys the value of our currency.... That is exactly why our dollar is valued so little presently - because Obama spent trillions and put millions out of work...

I got news for you - the rich wont be rich anymore after your lovely government takes all their fucking money, and redistributes that money to those who are out of work, or to his fucking greedy little voting base which consists of unions and lazy welfare fucks...

 

[Full-Auto]

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?

Anything to justify wealth envy.

 

[KissMy]

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

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.

The rich never pay the set tax rate. They pay whatever they feel like paying. They are smarter than the IRS who only go after easy middle class prey.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Jared Bernstein was Biden's chief economic advisor and worked on Obama's staff. Further, citing two examples is not proof of anything. There are many other factors to explain the discrepency.
But he ignores the growth that followed the Coolidge tax cuts in the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s.
This is a fact-free propaganda piece masquerading as scientific opinion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Gee.....ya' lost your "boot-straps", or something??

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reducing federal spending is impossible.

And there you have it folks. The mentality that will end us.

So, what......you have a "magical-wand", that'll cure all our.....​

.....infrastructure-issues???????​

Do your thing, princess!!!​

 

[usmcstinger]

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?

Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one. Huffington Post reliable and non political source. Give me a break! Try finding a real reliable source. Some day you may learn how to properly research an issue. Right now you are clueless.

Higher rates on the rich are not, then, a free lunch. At low levels rate increases will lift revenue, but not without a cost in efficiency and short-term growth. If the budget is a government’s primary concern, then the evidence is that reforms which close loopholes and broaden the tax base are a more efficient way to bring in more money than higher taxes for the rich.
Taxing the wealthy: Diving into the rich pool | The Economist

 

[Londoner]

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.

I agree that US industrial supremacy was an effect of what WWII. Also, Nixon had yet to open China. India was still in the embryonic stages of becoming a genuine economic powerhouse.

I disagree that tax policy wasn't used to strengthen the middle class. Even Reagan supported high taxes on the wealthy as governor of California ... to subsidize the greatest public university system in the world. He campaigned on giving the middle class greater access to higher education. His father was saved by an FDR work program. He campaigned for Truman. He was a New Deal Democrat until the party moved radically toward the LBJ Welfare state, where support was increasingly in the form of hand outs. Read his early autobiography entitled "Where's the Rest of Me?" Be careful with rightwing news sources. Best to go to something he authored.

In 1954 when Reagan entered the top bracket because of his Warner Brothers Salary, he started to get sick of how much the government was taking from his paycheck. This lead him to eventually campaigning for Goldwater (where he gave his famous "Time for Choosing Speech"). Eventually he succumbed to the Chicago School echo chamber and the trickle down theory which held that the market would take care of everything, including expanding educational opportunity (...but he still governed California like a moderate Democrat, save his abortion policy, which was the most liberal ever passed. He was an opportunist who never set foot in church, but realized as President that he needed the Moral Majority to replace Leftwing workingman populism with far right values populism).

Anyway, Since we started divesting from the public university system - which started in the 80s in order to give larger tax cuts to the wealthy - we've seen an explosion in middle class debt. Families have seen their wages destroyed by globalization, while their college tuitions have skyrocketed. This is why there has been an explosion in household debt starting in the 80s. America went from bubble to bubble to make up for both disappearing wages and the slow unwinding of investment in the middle class. Subsidies slowly went from our great public university system to special interests in every sector, big oil being chief among them.

Big money captured Washington and moved investment from the middle class and infrastructure to the strengthening of mega-corporations, who have been awarded monopolies over most sectors. You've been told that it's a free market, limited only by government. You don't get it. Business funds elections and writes their own regulations. Eli Lilly doesn't want a free market. They want to buy congressmen so they can squeeze our foreign and generic drug makers, and then lock the entitlement drug purchases into above market costs. They staff government and construct their own regulations.

You've been lied to.

[Another thing, unrelated. Did you know that Reagan used the Cold War to strengthen the global market system? He used the Soviet Threat to pull vital resource regions under the eagle's protective wing. There was an economic basis to the Cold War that all the evil empire bluster never accounts for. Did you notice how the 3rd world emerged from the Cold War? Our clothing comes from places like Vietnam and Grenada. We weren't fighting the Russians so much as constructing markets. The Soviets, like the terrorists, gave us a context for intervention in vital regions. I actually think that using the Cold War as a context for globalization was beneficial on some levels, e.g., the USA had the cheapest energy costs for decades, and we pay very little for raw materials (until you factor in the Pentagon costs for stabilizing the globe, which costs Reagan tried very hard to hide. Carter asked him to put the military cost into a barrel of oil, so the market could get the proper signal and not over-invest. Reagan ignored him and dug our grave. Stabilizing the middle east has been a fiscal nightmare). I'm just amazed at how little the Right knows about this. They are stuck in Hollywood narratives about fighting evil doers. They know nothing of the economic sub-structures. Big nations require resources. War is never about evil-doers. It is about shaping the globe in a way that benefits your economy]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You must be very proud of your ignorance and lack of education since you had no problem showing it off in your mockery.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Exactly correct and I've brought this up over and over again every time some dipshit tries to hold up the post war years as proof high taxes improve the economy. People who do so are people who lack education and are completely ignorant in the science of economics.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Why do we have to continue to argue with Republicans when over 70% agree to let the Bush tax breaks expire? Round and round goes their arguments. First it will hurt the economy, then it will cost jobs, then they won't invest or buy things, and then its the old class warfare argument, then start all over again and never give up the fight.

Fuck you top 1%. The Bush tax breaks are over. But I'm sure they will hold something hostage if we don't give let them extend the breaks.

The breaks were meant to expire. That is how Bush got them past us. And many people didn't realize that their tax breaks ended after 2 years but the top 1%'s tax breaks just keep on going. Foolish American house slaves.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Progressives don't understand the concept of money and they don't understand the idea of supply and demand...

The idea that people who have more money in their pockets will spend more money is fucking alien to them.

No, they want government to steal money from the rich and give it to them hence they "have more money that they will spend" however those fucking idiots never factored "redistribution costs" which totally waste "money."

The truth is - all economies rely on production, paying someone to do jack shit is like burning money........ Overpaying for a product or service is like burning money...

All progressives know about money is that it is green and they can buy useless shit from China with it........

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Why do we have to continue to argue with Republicans when over 70% agree to let the Bush tax breaks expire? Round and round goes their arguments. First it will hurt the economy, then it will cost jobs, then they won't invest or buy things, and then its the old class warfare argument, then start all over again and never give up the fight.

Fuck you top 1%. The Bush tax breaks are over. But I'm sure they will hold something hostage if we don't give let them extend the breaks.

The breaks were meant to expire. That is how Bush got them past us. And many people didn't realize that their tax breaks ended after 2 years but the top 1%'s tax breaks just keep on going. Foolish American house slaves.

You understand the Obama tax cuts (yes, he signed legislation passed by Dem majorities in Congress) are across the board, right? So when they expire EVERYONE's taxes will go up. At least those who actually pay income taxes. The other 50% are democrats.

 

[Douger]

Let me put it in uh murkin perspective. If you tell Brad Pitt he can only make 1 million per movie, he'll make 50 movies a year. Do you understand yet ?

 

[editec]

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?

The DEGREE TO WHCIH they are effected is wildly different.

Now seriously, you couldn't figure that out by yourself?

Seriously?

 

[Rozman]

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

If we are to follow this crazy left wing theory that the higher the taxes on
people the better the economy.The lefties offer proof of the Clinton years
of higher taxes = better economy.They conveniently leave out the .com bubble
that fueled it all.

The left wants to use these crazy math formulas
like Nancy Pelosi's that the more people on unemployment the better
as more money comes back into the economy or the higher the taxes on people
the better.Then why doesn't the left be honest and say what they really want.
All monies earned should go to government and government will provide for all.

 

[Conservative]

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?

Oh oh... a blog... a liberal leaning blog, posted in HuffPo...we should all take it as Gospel.

 

[zeke]

Hey, how's everything in tax cut fantasy land?

Still thinking that all those Bush tax cuts are going to cause job growth and revenue increases? When?

To damn bad you Rethugs don't have any success to point out from those Bush tax cuts.

But do not let reality get in the way of your tax fantasy.

Keep carrying the water for the ultra rich. Maybe they will give you a job cutting grass or something.

 

[California Girl]

huffpo.

ROTFL

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

Hotlinked to a blog. That's what passes for 'journalistic integrity' with the HuffPuff.

How many of us could live on $8k a year? Because, if we redistributed the wealth globally... that is what each one of us would get. $8k. Nice theory, shame about the practical outcome.

Stupidity is a way of life for you, Fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, how's everything in tax cut fantasy land?

Still thinking that all those Bush tax cuts are going to cause job growth and revenue increases? When?

To damn bad you Rethugs don't have any success to point out from those Bush tax cuts.

But do not let reality get in the way of your tax fantasy.

Keep carrying the water for the ultra rich. Maybe they will give you a job cutting grass or something.

Um, they did cause growth. Check the record for the 24+ months after they were enacted.
Are you still clinging to the fantasy of "saved and created jobs" by the stimulus?
The Bush tax cuts were a success, the Obama stimulus was a failure.