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."
- White House: It’s not combat, but US troops will return fire if they’re shot at… Noah Rothman 22 mins ago
- Stemwinder: Rand Paul rips Obama’s Syria plan, McCain, Kerry, Hillary, interventionists, anti-war hypocrites, you name it Allahpundit 1 hour ago
- Congressman: The CIA thinks Obama’s strategy of arming Syrian moderates is “doomed to failure” Allahpundit 1 hour ago
- Ukrainian President warns joint session of Congress of the ‘new Cold War’ Noah Rothman 2 hours ago
- Open thread: Will Scotland declare independence? Allahpundit 3 hours ago
- Syrian rebels openly admit: We’re going to use America’s money to fight Assad, not just ISIS Allahpundit 3 hours ago