Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
https://www.politico.com/interactive...e-cut-wealthy/
The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.
Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.
POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
|
Obama referred to published federal studies, which said that Obamacare would save each family $2,500. Maybe tomorrow, they'll publish a paper saying the earth is flat. I'm not impressed.
If Hilary had won, and she was proposing tax cuts, Spence would be all for it.
As long as the feds have enough to do the things they are supposed to do, it cannot be a bad thing to take no more.
Tax cuts can be followed by a recession (or growth), it doesn't mean the cuts caused the recession (or growth). There's too any moving pieces. But who here, chooses to pay more taxes than we have to?
Being slightly above middle class here in CT, I presume I'll be paying more since I can no longer deduct my asinine CT taxes. If poorer people are helped by doubling the standard deduction, and businesses are helped by slashing the corporate tax rate, I'll take it.
I'd like to see businesses keep more of their income (and this become instantly more valuable), I'd like to see some of the money parked overseas come back here, and for sure I'd like to see people below the middle, (1) keep more of their income, and (2) have better potential for wage increases. I don't know if this plan does that, neither does anyone else.