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."
- Heartache for lefties: Elizabeth Warren defends Israel at Massachusetts town hall Allahpundit 47 mins ago
- ISIL is busy building a capital in Syria while Obama dithers Gabriel Malor 1 hour ago
- Alison Lundergan Grimes channels Patches O’Houlihan on campaign trail Matt Vespa 2 hours ago
- Hillary: After weeks of criticism, I have decided I do have an opinion on Ferguson Noah Rothman 2 hours ago
- DNC spokesman: We condemn Rand Paul’s “blame America” worldview Allahpundit 3 hours ago
- Open thread: Semi-retired president to address something he saw on the news today about Ukraine at 4 p.m. ET; Update: “Ongoing incursion”; Update: No strategy yet on ISIS Allahpundit 4 hours ago