But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but...
Why do both sides have such narrow arguments? Libs say the rich should pay their fair share. Conservatives insist that lower taxes bring more revenues. I think it is true that lib tax and economic policy is bad in the long run. Conservative policy is also unproven. There has always been more to economics that tax policy. I think Reagan's sucess had as much to do with the confidence he inspired as his policies. We balanced the budget in the 90s. Was it government policy or the hi-tech boom? The 2000s saw higher revenues under the Bush tax cuts which had more to do with the real estate boom. It was government policy that produced the boom and that same liberal redistribution policy of lending to people who could not afford to pay them.
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says."
- Turkish parliament to vote on joining anti-ISIS coalition Ed Morrissey 44 mins ago
- SCOTUS blocks extended early voting options in Ohio Jazz Shaw 1 hour ago
- US, Afghanistan sign security agreement; 9800 US troops to stay Ed Morrissey 2 hours ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 11 hours ago
- By the way: U.S. troops have landed in West Africa to fight Ebola Mary Katharine Ham 12 hours ago
- Cheer up, Eric Holder: You’re only the third-most-hated Obama Cabinet official Noah Rothman 12 hours ago