Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[mikegriffith1]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

 

[thereisnospoon]

The people getting paid that little would probably not have a job out there for them WITHOUT Wal-mart. Those jobs are not meant to support a family, but as a stepping stone to a job that CAN support one. If the best you can do is an entry level job at Wal Mart or McDonalds for your entire career, and you are not mentally challenged, then you made some seriously poor life choices along the way.

Given they are the largest employer in the country we have a serious problem then. You prefer these people be supported by the government than their employer? This is one reason spending is too high and government grows. Walmart should really pay more as their employees are also customers so sales would go up. The Waltons make billions each year, they should really pay enough employees aren't on welfare. It would be good for the country.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's a refutation of the right wing fallacy that lowering taxes always generates economic growth.

Red herring fallacy. No one claims lowering any tax will always produce growth.
Libs are stupid.

You guys do it all the fucking time. Either that or take the tack on how unfair it is that some people have to pay more taxes than others.

Nope.
Mere assertion fallacy.
Rabbi Rules! Chewck my sig line.

 

[The Rabbi]

Given they are the largest employer in the country we have a serious problem then. You prefer these people be supported by the government than their employer? This is one reason spending is too high and government grows. Walmart should really pay more as their employees are also customers so sales would go up. The Waltons make billions each year, they should really pay enough employees aren't on welfare. It would be good for the country.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

 

[Brain357]

Given they are the largest employer in the country we have a serious problem then. You prefer these people be supported by the government than their employer? This is one reason spending is too high and government grows. Walmart should really pay more as their employees are also customers so sales would go up. The Waltons make billions each year, they should really pay enough employees aren't on welfare. It would be good for the country.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

That cleared up nothing.

 

[Brain357]

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

Actually you seem to be the communist. You approve of government dependency. You think it's great the Waltons make billions while their employees are government subsidized. Sounds like a communist to me. I'm the one who wants smaller government.

You sound like a thief to me, also a jack ass just saying

 

[Brain357]

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

 

[Brain357]

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

Actually you seem to be the communist. You approve of government dependency. You think it's great the Waltons make billions while their employees are government subsidized. Sounds like a communist to me. I'm the one who wants smaller government.

You sound like a thief to me, also a jack ass just saying

You dont sound very smart.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

Actually you seem to be the communist. You approve of government dependency. You think it's great the Waltons make billions while their employees are government subsidized. Sounds like a communist to me. I'm the one who wants smaller government.

are you familiar with Obama's Commerce Secretary?

 

[Brain357]

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

Actually you seem to be the communist. You approve of government dependency. You think it's great the Waltons make billions while their employees are government subsidized. Sounds like a communist to me. I'm the one who wants smaller government.

are you familiar with Obama's Commerce Secretary?

Are you a parrot?

 

[sealybobo]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.

FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.

What others do with their wealth is none of your business.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed

Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.

FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.

What others do with their wealth is none of your business.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed

Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.

High inome people pay over 100% of income taxes. How about YOU pay some fucking taxes and quit whining, kay?

 

[Brain357]

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.

 

[sealybobo]

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Let me explain. Walmart pays below poverty wages. Their employees get foodstamps. Then they spend the foodstamps at Walmart.

Understand now?

 

[sealybobo]

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.

And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.

 

[The Rabbi]

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Let me explain. Walmart pays below poverty wages. Their employees get foodstamps. Then they spend the foodstamps at Walmart.

Understand now?

Let me explain: WalMart hires people and pays them wages. If they didnt hire them, they'd be unemployed and drawing unemployment or welfare in addition to food stamps.
Understand now?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.

And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.

Evidence? Link? Why do you suppose they do that?