Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

65 Years of Data Indicates: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Don't Create Jobs


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,293 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Senate Republicans applied pressure to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) in September, successfully persuading it to withdraw a report finding that lowering marginal tax rates for the wealthiest Americans had no effect on economic growth or job creation.

"The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical," the Times reported. Democrats in Congress, however, have resurfaced the report and published it in full. It can be read below.

The CRS report, by researcher Thomas Hungerford, concluded:

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.


Rep. Sandy Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, demanded the CRS explain its decision. "The impartial research and advice provided by CRS experts informs and strengthens the work of Congress. However, this valuable role hinges on the impartiality of CRS analysts and their freedom from political pressure. As with other non-partisan institutions, subjecting CRS analysts to political considerations undermines the legislative process and the American people’s trust in it," Levin wrote in a letter to CRS. "Therefore I was deeply disturbed to hear that Mr. Hungerford’s report was taken down in response to political pressure from Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report’s factual findings and conclusion."

http://www.huffingto..._n_2059156.html



#2 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

Wow, so you mean we've been lied to? LOL...

Who would've ever guessed the top 1% likes the system as is and don't want it to change so they can keep caking it up and keep us in a state of perpetual slavery? Good find Nanuq.

#3 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:40 PM

the problem is that millions of voters treat entirely quantifiable things as a matter of faith

it's no surprise that the jesus party is willing latch on to something demonstrably wrong like supply side economics

#4 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

I don't care if they tax the Mark Cubans of the world. I want them to lessen the burden on all the small business owners who are making 100-200 G a year but working 60-70 hours to do so. Let these people breathe. If you want to tax the doctor who plays golf 20 hours a week, more power to you. But leave the guy who is running the only hardware store (other than Lowe's or Home Depot) in a 10-mile radius alone. And ease the burden on companies that have large warehouses so that they can hire 100 new workers a month as their online business grows. Don't keep those 100 jobs from happening because of regulations that really only benefit a handful of people. An imperfect job is better than no job at all.

#5 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,747 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

How do you differentiate between the two?

#6 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,293 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:29 PM

How do you reduce your amount of taxes as a business owner? Reinvest your profits back in your business.

When taxes are lower, businesses have an incentive to take their profits.

When taxes are higher, businesses have an incentive to reinvest, to decrease their tax bill.

#7 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,848 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

i think i remember seeing that tax breaks for the wealthy have only worked when coming off of record highs.

Otherwise the amount you tax the wealthiest indiividuals seems to have no effect, good or bad.

is the report consistent with this?

#8 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,293 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:41 PM

i think i remember seeing that tax breaks for the wealthy have only worked when coming off of record highs.

Otherwise the amount you tax the wealthiest indiividuals seems to have no effect, good or bad.

is the report consistent with this?


"The top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution."

#9 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,848 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:43 PM

"The top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution."


"you give rich people more money, they'll have more money"

#10 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,293 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:41 PM

"you give rich people more money, they'll have more money"


Actually it is "When the rich extract more money, they'll have more money."

The corporate leaders are extracting a larger and larger percentage of this country's wealth for themselves and leaving less and less for the average worker. Due to their political influence they have also reduced their overall tax rates to historic lows. The richest Americans now pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the average worker. How does that make sense?

Individuals that have more money than they can spend are not going to alter their spending habits based on a tax cut and they are certainly not going to stimulate our economy out of recession.

On the other hand those millions of people that require more money than their incomes currently provide will spend whatever they can get their hands on hoping to make it to the next payday.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you need to get more of our national resources to the middle and lower income brackets.

The best way to do that is for employers to reallocate resources toward providing a living wage for some of the most productive people in the world, American workers.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades the trend has been just the opposite. There have been fewer and smaller increases for the average worker and larger and more frequent increases for the top income earners. Our national economic system is clearly out of balance.

It does not take a degree in economics to realize this imbalance is unsustainable. It is an undesirable trend that can only undermine the well being of our nation's democracy if it is allowed to continue unabated.

#11 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,066 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

Couple of questions for you libs:

1. How much do you have to make to be "wealthy"?

2. What type of tax change do you propose for this "wealthy" class?

3. How much is enough for you?

#12 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,948 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:02 AM

Complaints about taxes would disappear if the government would stop wasting money on stupid wars, pet projects of Senator X, and sheer incompetence.

#13 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,089 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

Couple of questions for you libs:

1. How much do you have to make to be "wealthy"?

2. What type of tax change do you propose for this "wealthy" class?

3. How much is enough for you?



I don't consider myself a lib but Ill take a crack at the answers.

1. Wealthy is defined (in my book) as having self sustaining assets that would, in leiu of any other income, afford you a "middle class" life.

2. Reduce the number of ways that people can reclassify income to reduce the number of shelters. Not a flat tax per se but something closer to it.

3. Enough what?

#14 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,066 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:16 AM

I don't consider myself a lib but Ill take a crack at the answers.

1. Wealthy is defined (in my book) as having self sustaining assets that would, in leiu of any other income, afford you a "middle class" life.

Like my grand parents who live on past investments that were made with after taxed dollars?

2. Reduce the number of ways that people can reclassify income to reduce the number of shelters. Not a flat tax per se but something closer to it.

Explain in detail. Do you mean that you would just have a tax on what you spend, not what you earn?

3. Enough what?

How much is enough....like where does the tax stop. How much should one person pay regardless of income?



#15 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,747 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:23 AM

Your grandparents investments would not be taxed as they are but if they recognized a profit on them that profit should be taxed. Just as they can write off a loss if the investment turns south.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com