Study by a team of three economists finds higher taxes on the rich are not harmful

In fact, low taxes can be harmful and higher taxes can be very helpful accordig to this study.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/7402

 

And here are a few of them



The title of the article suggests the tax rate should be 80%

Welcome to the lunatic world of socialism.

 

Eisenhower was a socialist???????

Try again. (Speaking of lunatic worlds.)

 

Wow. It took a TEAM of economic-eggheads to figure THAT out? (Sigh.)

 

And in your haste to express your intolerance, you overlooked that my point was that HIGHER taxes for the rich is not harmful, but could actually be very beneficial. The 80% figure is theirs, and it shows that 5% more would be quite acceptible relative to 80%. So my point stands. The 80% figure was theirs, -not mine.

 

Facts get in the way of the conservative story . I'm glad you posted this. I didn't know this website existed.

 

Yeah well hey, the right hasn't figured it out yet!

 

No, socialism isn't necessarily 'lunacy' (not anymore than capitalism applied properly would be).

If we let ANYTHING plod along unregulated, then we can always expect that an 'imbalance' of very serious proportions will occur. It does not take a panel of economic geniuses to see where America has gone wrong with its implementation of "capitalism". Capitalism (or economic freedom) isn't a bad thing, unless/until it gets out of control.

This nation did not have an economic meltdown for nothing.

 

No, they SEE the truth; they are just being as sly as they can... to avoid admitting what's right in front of them.

 

The article focuses on government revenue, not on economic growth; nowhere does it claim that higher taxes would be helpful to the economy, only that they would be helpful to the government budget. It should be patently obvious that income taxes are an economic burden.

 

What does regulation have to do with taxation?

Are you saying that taxation serves a regulatory function? What might that be?

If you dare say "It forces the rich to invest or lose it to the government." as an argument, that is a debunked lie that hasn't been taken seriously since the Carter era.

 

This is key. "Third, we find no evidence of a correlation between growth in real GDP per capita and the drop in the top marginal tax rate in the period 1975 to the present." Sad for the right .

 

Pretty sure Eisenhower is dead and wasn't an economist.

LOL liberals

 

Socialism will always be lunacy because people do not have a drive to improve themselves or their communities without incentive.

You must have that for socialism to actually work.

 

And your point?

 

He didn't write the study and I would LOVE to see a quote from him that the rich should pay 80% in taxes.

Feel free to post it.

 

Can you document that?

Would you say that socialism is antagonistic to any possible notion of competition among businesses?

 

Maybe I used the wrong technical terminology. Bottom line: The American people should not let corporations define this society as much as they presently do. The MONEY in politics is out of control and that needs to be dealt with.

It likely could be used that way, but I wasn't headed in that direction per se.

I'm not saying that taxes are THE solution. But I AM saying that MORE MONEY should not guarantee and person or corporation MORE of a "VOICE". That (in my view) isn't right, and it endangers the essence of our nation's democratic ideals.

 

The top tax bracket under Eisenhower was 91%.

 

No, you are generally incorrect. Capitalism, improperly or unregulated is surely a curse... not a nation's blessing.

I'm virtually certain that is an improper assumption on your part.

 

We had to pay for World War II, or did you forget?

 

We have two wars now, that have both lasted longer than World War II. We probably need to pay for those too....

 

Irrelevant to the discussion. Try reviewing what I was responding to and why I might have said that.

And in fact, it is VERY relevant (come to think of it). We need to pay for Bush's two wars, tax cuts, and Medicare botch-up, or did you forget?

 

What's funny is the reason people think higher taxes is bad is because businesses raise prices. People give too much control to businesses. If they raise prices you don't have to buy their product. Higher personal income taxes were actually designed to promote investment in to businesses. Because the more profit you make in business the more money you get to keep.

It is pure ignorance that people say that businesses will raise prices if we raise personal income taxes. I'm sure Lebron James and Paris Hilton will raise their prices if we raise their taxes, lol.

Raising taxes drastically would be the best thing for the economy.

 

Uh no, how bout instead we just cut the welfare state to the bone? That sounds like a much better idea to me.