tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post931879984290982586..comments2024-03-16T02:16:54.082-07:00Comments on Vagabond Scholar: Tax Cuts to the Rich Don't Raise RevenuesBatocchiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-46049629207648037962011-08-13T21:56:01.222-07:002011-08-13T21:56:01.222-07:00The reason why higher tax rate on the rich is good...The reason why higher tax rate on the rich is good for the economy is that most of the excess wealth that the rich have is either dead or it is used to drive speculation. Both are bad for the economy. Higher tax rate on the rich converts this "dead" money into consumption which drives economical growth. Nobody asks what happens to a country when the rich own most of the wealth. The Peter Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01251035181405337913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-30533712895741834552010-11-04T18:32:04.506-07:002010-11-04T18:32:04.506-07:00If there is no causation when raising taxes, then ...If there is no causation when raising taxes, then there is no causation when lowering taxes. Then you must admit that taxation, either up or down, is simply a red herring and just used to falsely influence people.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-29308896890215539172010-11-04T14:34:32.390-07:002010-11-04T14:34:32.390-07:00Correlation is not causation, as other, more impor...Correlation is not causation, as other, more important factors than the tax rates affect economic growth. <br /><br />Three vignettes:<br />Bill Clinton raised the tax rates while the economy expanded. At the same time, the internet/tech boom occurred - which had nothing to do with tax rates. And as a result of the internet/tech boom, the number of people who invested in the stock market rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06459925462010675288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-19120091466219556332010-11-04T14:27:03.798-07:002010-11-04T14:27:03.798-07:00Folks, thanks for stopping by. I've actually ...Folks, thanks for stopping by. I've actually got a follow-up post in the works that addresses the Cato post that was cut-and-pasted here. I'll try to check out your links in more depth as well. Don't stop arguing on my account, but I'm afraid my blogging/commenting time is limited. If nothing else, there are a number of excellent econoblogs out there that live and breathe thisBatocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-50485219585582469472010-11-04T13:23:12.603-07:002010-11-04T13:23:12.603-07:00Just read the references.Just read the references.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-55365607900345886612010-11-04T13:21:12.808-07:002010-11-04T13:21:12.808-07:00Jerry,
Your last post doesn't make sense. A p...Jerry,<br />Your last post doesn't make sense. A presidential term is 4 years, not 8. <br /><br />The Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2003...GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent. Economic growth remained positive until March 2007.rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06459925462010675288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-16864723482479004642010-11-04T13:09:48.911-07:002010-11-04T13:09:48.911-07:00Thirdly, the way to shrink government is to raise ...Thirdly, the way to <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/stoking-the-beast/4862/1/" rel="nofollow">shrink government is to raise taxes</a>, not lower them.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-31483874394300508812010-11-04T13:06:40.567-07:002010-11-04T13:06:40.567-07:00Do you have any facts to support that statement?
...Do you have any facts to support that statement?<br /><br />I would say that there is strong evidence to the contrary, considering the U.S. ranking for GDP since 1980, tracking back to the massive tax cuts enacted under Reagan.<br /><br />http://wallstreetpit.com/29036-americas-amazing-success-since-1980-why-krugman-is-wrongrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06459925462010675288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-82156322572873058942010-11-04T13:04:38.616-07:002010-11-04T13:04:38.616-07:00Also, the more the tax burden was reduced during t...Also, <a href="http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/06/taxes-and-private-sector-investment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FHzoh+%28Angry+Bear%29&utm_content=Google+Reader" rel="nofollow">the more the tax burden was reduced during the first two years of an administration, the slower the economic growth in the following six years</a>.<br /><br />Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-81174583127056186572010-11-04T12:57:56.561-07:002010-11-04T12:57:56.561-07:00Historically, economic growth is greater with high...Historically, economic growth is <a href="http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/12/comparing-presidents-real-gdp-per_14.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FHzoh+%28Angry+Bear%29&utm_content=Google+Reader" rel="nofollow">greater with higher taxes</a>, not with lower taxes.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-49229840322114616942010-11-04T12:40:26.663-07:002010-11-04T12:40:26.663-07:00You lost all credibility with your chart from Paul...You lost all credibility with your chart from Paul Krugman. BTW, the total debt was not 13.3T when Bush left office...how convenient that the chart you used attributed the 3T of debt growth by Obama to Bush. <br /><br />If you really want the facts on revenues, outlays, and the debt, please go here:<br /><br />http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2010/xls/ERP-2010-table81.xls<br /><br />Or here:<rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06459925462010675288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-66846908466169707402010-10-30T04:57:50.957-07:002010-10-30T04:57:50.957-07:00Great post! This should be required reading for e...Great post! This should be required reading for every American.Stephen Krizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577988184226223487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-47592416079807022002010-10-26T13:03:43.727-07:002010-10-26T13:03:43.727-07:00Excellent summary. Thanks for the effort.Excellent summary. Thanks for the effort.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-48624112137674113572010-10-26T11:19:07.340-07:002010-10-26T11:19:07.340-07:00The assumption is that the conservative movement i...The assumption is that the conservative movement is being fully honest about tax cuts. But it isn't in the end an economic argument. It's a mealymouthed excuse to reduce government revenue, raise debt and therefore put pressure on entitlement programs, regulation and government capacity that conservatives believe stand in the way of profit making and profit taking, presented as 'Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17397163169682306900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14857092.post-24391300892398780352010-10-26T10:46:55.188-07:002010-10-26T10:46:55.188-07:00Measured in constant 2005 dollars, real federal re...Measured in constant 2005 dollars, real federal revenues rose from $968.4 billion in 1970 to $1,197.6 billion in 1980 and to $1508.7 billion in 1990. In other words, the cumulative real revenue gain was 23.7% under the high and rising tax rates of the 1970s, and 26% under the dramatic reduction in tax rates of the 1980s.<br /><br />Paul Krugman looked at these same figures through his Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02554173959495030805noreply@blogger.com