tax cuts for wealthy dont stimulate the economy:study

[Truthmatters]

He used hard exsisting data and shows the patterns in the hard exsisting data.


Its a real life study NOT some republicans blog

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He's not biased?

says you


Hes also NOT an economist

It was a question you idiot not a statement. Notice the little "?" at the end.

I'm convinced TM's huffed a wee bit too much Rustoleum over the years.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Is econoomics a hard science or a social science, TM?

??

 

[Truthmatters]

from 1950 to 1963 the top tax rate was over 90%.


that was a good economy and you people cant change these facts

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He used hard exsisting data and shows the patterns in the hard exsisting data.


Its a real life study NOT some republicans blog

Link us to the actual study.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why didnt the economy crash like you people claim it would?

 

[Truthmatters]

Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Macroeconomic Effects of Income & Payroll Tax Changes by Owen Zidar :: SSRN


it was right in the article





This paper investigates how tax changes for different income groups affect macroeconomic activity. Using historical tax return data from NBER’s TAXSIM, I construct a measure of who received (or who paid for) postwar tax changes for each income and payroll tax change that Romer & Romer (2010) classify as exogenous. At the national level, I aggregate tax changes for all taxpayers in the the bottom 90% and the top 10% of AGI and relate these aggregates to output, employment, and consumption growth. At the state level, I construct Bartik instruments for state tax shocks using national tax changes and each state’s share of high income taxpayers. If tax cuts for high income earners generate substantial economic activity, then states with a large share of high income taxpayers should grow faster following a tax cut for high income earners. I find that the negative relationship between tax changes and real GDP growth over a two year period is almost entirely driven by tax changes for the bottom 90%. The empirical relationship between tax cuts for the top 10% percent and job creation is negligible in magnitude, statistically insignificant, and much weaker than that of equivalently sized tax cuts for the bottom 90%.

 

[Claudette]

from 1950 to 1963 the top tax rate was over 90%.

that was a good economy and you people cant change these facts

You want a 90% tax rate? You need to sign all your assets over to Uncle Sam.

He'll take it I'm sure.

Hope you like the poorhouse.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to his answer in the last presidential debates, obama knows that tax cuts stimulate the economy. He wants increased taxes, even if it means crippling the economy because it is fair.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894]Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes...even if it means less tax revenue!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

from 1950 to 1963 the top tax rate was over 90%.


that was a good economy and you people cant change these facts

Hey, while you're talking about tax rates, would you mind telling us what the tax rate is on the money you make posting here??

Thankies.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Is econoomics a hard science or a social science, TM?

Yes. It is both.

 

[Truthmatters]

from 1950 to 1963 the top tax rate was over 90%.

that was a good economy and you people cant change these facts

You want a 90% tax rate? You need to sign all your assets over to Uncle Sam.

He'll take it I'm sure.

Hope you like the poorhouse.

top tax bracket you fool.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why didnt the economy crash like you people claim it would?

We never claimed it would dumbfuck.... that was Obama's claim that if we didn't spend a gazillion $$ the world would come to an end.

Do try and keep up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is econoomics a hard science or a social science, TM?

Yes. It is both.

Economics is not a hard science you fool.... my God you lefties are ignorant...

 

[Dick Tuck]

But raising taxes on them will make the economy soar won't it? lol

Actually it would. Instead of pissing away money on frivolous crap, the rich would become more inclined to maintain and grow their wealth for long term gains. That would result in more jobs for everyone else, and increase consumers that will add to the wealth of all.

What?

You guys should really take an econ class or two....hell, it should be mandatory for any LOLberal.

Look at history and do the math. How many private sector jobs resulted from the Bush supply-side cuts? Oh, he actually lost private sector jobs. How many private sector jobs resulted from Clinton's tax increases? Go look it up and report back.

 

[peach174]

this guy has an economics education.

You gave a biased blog spot

He's not biased?

says you


Hes also NOT an economist

He got the numbers from the governments own web sites. Which you refuse to believe.
He doesn't need to be an economist.
The economist you put up is a biased opinion with his numbers, not the numbers from the government.

 

[Truthmatters]

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1902-2015 - Federal State Local Data

 

[Rat in the Hat]

from 1950 to 1963 the top tax rate was over 90%.


that was a good economy and you people cant change these facts

Hey, while you're talking about tax rates, would you mind telling us what the tax rate is on the money you make posting here??

Thankies.

Bump for Truthmatters to ignore again.

 

[Truthmatters]

note the revrenues went down when Bush lowered their taxes and revenues went up when Clinton raised their taxes


http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1902_2015USp_F0t

 

[Katzndogz]

Actually it would. Instead of pissing away money on frivolous crap, the rich would become more inclined to maintain and grow their wealth for long term gains. That would result in more jobs for everyone else, and increase consumers that will add to the wealth of all.

What?

You guys should really take an econ class or two....hell, it should be mandatory for any LOLberal.

Look at history and do the math. How many private sector jobs resulted from the Bush supply-side cuts? Oh, he actually lost private sector jobs. How many private sector jobs resulted from Clinton's tax increases? Go look it up and report back.

Increased taxes create jobs. Is that what you mean? A company that has to pay more money in taxes will hire more people.