Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Obama tax hikes on rich didn't hurt econ/rich

Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:04:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Here are some excerpts from an article on the study. After looking at Kansas and Bush jr., it's safe to say which economic/tax theory works out better.

"The top 1 percent of earners managed to increase their share of the nation's income at about the same pace after their taxes were raised as they had before, according to the study, released Thursday by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley."

"That outcome suggests that wealthier Americans did not respond to the higher taxes by either working less or saving less, as many economists often say will happen."

"Most independent analyses have concluded that Clinton's tax hikes would modestly slow the economy. With any new income subject to higher taxes, economists typically assume that richer Americans would work and save somewhat less. Lower savings would mean that the wealthy would invest less in stocks and corporate bonds, leaving companies with less money to borrow to buy more equipment."

"Yet Saez said his research suggests that the 2013 tax increases for the wealthy didn't slow the economy, at least so far."

"Other data point appear to support Saez's conclusion: Employers added 5.8 million jobs in 2014 and 2015 " the strongest two-year growth since the late 1990s."

"Saez said his conclusions echo research on the effects of President Bill Clinton's tax increase for the wealthy in 1993, which was followed later that decade by sharp income increases for the wealthiest Americans. Yet middle- and lower-income households also enjoyed solid gains."

http://www.tampabay.com...

Here is the study itself: https://eml.berkeley.edu...

Another nail in the coffin of Horse and Sparrow economics, wouldn't ya say?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:18:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 11:04:15 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Here are some excerpts from an article on the study. After looking at Kansas and Bush jr., it's safe to say which economic/tax theory works out better.

"The top 1 percent of earners managed to increase their share of the nation's income at about the same pace after their taxes were raised as they had before, according to the study, released Thursday by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley."

"That outcome suggests that wealthier Americans did not respond to the higher taxes by either working less or saving less, as many economists often say will happen."

"Most independent analyses have concluded that Clinton's tax hikes would modestly slow the economy. With any new income subject to higher taxes, economists typically assume that richer Americans would work and save somewhat less. Lower savings would mean that the wealthy would invest less in stocks and corporate bonds, leaving companies with less money to borrow to buy more equipment."

"Yet Saez said his research suggests that the 2013 tax increases for the wealthy didn't slow the economy, at least so far."

"Other data point appear to support Saez's conclusion: Employers added 5.8 million jobs in 2014 and 2015 " the strongest two-year growth since the late 1990s."

"Saez said his conclusions echo research on the effects of President Bill Clinton's tax increase for the wealthy in 1993, which was followed later that decade by sharp income increases for the wealthiest Americans. Yet middle- and lower-income households also enjoyed solid gains."

http://www.tampabay.com...

Here is the study itself: https://eml.berkeley.edu...

Another nail in the coffin of Horse and Sparrow economics, wouldn't ya say?

And sane person would. Wait for the last few remaining hopefuls to chime in.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:47:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
OMG here it is again...another partisan thread saying Taxes are gooooood and Tax cuts are baaaaad.

Economic tax policies don't exist in a bubble and there are other factors that account for economic growth, and often, taxes are the least consideration. Sometimes taxes are the main driving force. It just is not conveniently universally true in all cases.There is literally no need to try to oversimplify tax policy unless you have a giant partisan axe to grind. So sick of the partisan prattle...
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Couldn't open the study.

Tax hikes on rich didn't hurt or help econ/rich...is probably the more app title.