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...
Sorry, you are incorrect. And it's empirical - you can look it up easily. You made an absolute assertion about something that by nature is much more complex - hence my appropriately simplistic response. "tax increases tend to generate only short trem revenue growth at the expense of a weaker economy" If that was true then the exact OPPOSITE would not be shown throughout the last 70 years of economic history in this country. But I'm sure you have point-by-point explanations for the periods of higher taxes, higher revenues and higher economic growth and periods of lower taxes, lower revenues and lower economic growth which occurred throughout the last 70 years. So keep your head in the sand - it's no skin off my nose.
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says."
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 7 hours ago
- NYT: Sink loss “devastating” for Democrats, was driven by ObamaCare Mary Katharine Ham 8 hours ago
- Zuckerberg: U.S. government is a threat to the Internet Mary Katharine Ham 8 hours ago
- Kerry: I’m approaching the Keystone XL pipeline with a totally blank slate Erika Johnsen 9 hours ago
- The government doesn’t know how many empty buildings it owns — just that they’re costing us billions Erika Johnsen 10 hours ago
- WSJ/NBC poll: Americans now think sugar is a bigger health threat than marijuana Allahpundit 11 hours ago