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."
- Kerry: Let’s put together a coalition of the willing to defeat ISIS Ed Morrissey 28 mins ago
- Tuesday TEMS: Andrew Malcolm, Stephen Hayes Ed Morrissey 53 mins ago
- Latest ISIS beheading of an American exposes moral bankruptcy of our betters Noah Rothman 1 hour ago
- Video: Parents of fallen SEAL demand Obama resignation Ed Morrissey 1 hour ago
- Breaking: ISIS releases new video of beheading another American journalist Ed Morrissey 2 hours ago
- Politico sounds the alarm: Boehner may still have to listen to tea partiers after midterms Noah Rothman 3 hours ago