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."
- Rand Paul to Harry Reid: Simmer down with the “domestic terrorist” rhetoric about Bundy’s supporters Allahpundit 28 minutes ago
- Snowden: I asked Putin that softball question on surveillance to start a public debate in Russia Allahpundit 1 hour ago
- The Obama admin is delaying the Keystone XL review process through the election. Yes, again. Erika Johnsen 2 hours ago
- Rubio on immigration: I think Republicans have reached a point of “irreconcilable differences” with Obama Allahpundit 3 hours ago
- Report: Energy production on federal lands is still declining Erika Johnsen 4 hours ago
- Maybe Democrats should be more worried about their own billionaire allies Ed Morrissey 5 hours ago