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...
I have been trying to explain my "progressive" friends how taxing the rich hurts the poor. I have tried starting several small businesses, and each time was thwarted when downturns in the economy kept rich people from buying my products or from using my services. When a "rich" person in Los Angeles (Jerry Brown thinks $250,000 is rich) has his taxes raised, he still has to pay his mortgage and his bills, so he cuts back on "non-essentials," such as going out to nice restaurants, shopping at artsy boutiques and having regular massage. He also might have his son mow the lawn instead of the guy with the lawnmower in the back of his aging Toyota truck. He might clean the pool himself instead of hiring a pool service. The list goes on and on.
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says."
- ESPN: Ravens’ “misdirection” kept curiously passive NFL in the dark on video Ed Morrissey 32 mins ago
- Demands grow to end secrecy – and robbery – at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Jazz Shaw 2 hours ago
- Whistleblower cop in Scott Walker accusations paying a heavy price Jazz Shaw 3 hours ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 15 hours ago
- Scarborough: A certain network should cover Bridgegate clearing as much as allegations Mary Katharine Ham 16 hours ago
- Remind me again, why isn’t Condi Rice running for president? Allahpundit 16 hours ago