Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO

Comments (37)
RSaltyDog wrote:

Poll after poll after poll shows American’s want the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. The purpose of the tax cuts has failed to produce the intended results. (Jobs) There is no doubt cuts and less spending must also be done. I was a Republican for 35 years, now Independent, and a heads up to the GOP HOUSE: Time to reel in the TEAParty and time to cut bait with Norquist. You are on a clock ticking towards the 2014 House Reps re-elections. The House GOP has obligations to their PACS but without being elected the PAC is pointless.

Nov 08, 2012 9:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MoAnimus wrote:

Poll after poll? Can you point us to a poll that supports tax hikes without cutting wasteful government spending?

Nov 08, 2012 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MoAnimus wrote:

Poll after poll? Can you point us to a poll that supports tax hikes without cutting wasteful government spending?

Nov 08, 2012 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MoAnimus wrote:

Poll after poll? Can you point us to a poll that supports tax hikes without cutting wasteful government spending?

Nov 08, 2012 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MoAnimus wrote:

Poll after poll? Can you point us to a poll that supports tax hikes without cutting wasteful government spending?

Nov 08, 2012 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

The Congressional Research Service found no link between cutting taxes for the wealthy and economic growth.

Why would raising the top marginal back to the Clinton Era level (which is still far below historical levels) have a substantive effect on employment?

Nov 08, 2012 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:

The Republicans have been screaming about the deficit for years. However, they don’t want to cut defense expenditures or raise taxes on millionaires. Of course, they’re all in for cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or funding for any other social or regulatory program they don’t like.

They’re also in favor of eliminating the tax deductions enjoyed by the middle class, i.e. mortgage interest, charitable, and healthcare deductions. However, they won’t allow capital gains and dividend income to be taxed at personal income rate, i.e. the rate payed by people who actually work for a living.

See a pattern here? Favor the rich, screw everyone else.

Nov 08, 2012 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

Tax hikes won’t kill growth because there isn’t any. We’re simply keeping status quo, financially speaking.

Nov 08, 2012 10:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccharles wrote:

Isnt that what romney told you? Without taxpayers, and a taxpayer is a person who has a job and pays taxes, and increasing them with an increase in jobs that no tax hike would help because not enough will be paying to offset anything, regardless of what bracket they are talking about.

Now this is on the bush tax cuts… what they gonna do with the sequester? 600 bill spending cut, which will put a million to 1.5 million desk job (fed) worker out of work. Why was the sequester made up in the first place? to offset a debt cieling raise? and obama is just going to not do it, or so his comment seem to infer. How do you not enforce a law you enacted? Whats the consequences of not following through on previous commitments?

And why do you think the usa credit rating was downrated 2 steps? Cause it means that they, the goverment, are less likely to do as they say or have the ablity to do as they say, namely in repaying there loans.

Go get your seconds on that koolaid … its starting to sink in.

Nov 08, 2012 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

MoAnimus: Finding this one took me all of 20 seconds. If I can do that, you can find other polls within minutes:

“Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy”
Republicans need to drop this line of BS. They have nothing to back that up with; a majority of Americans think taxes on the wealthy should go up; The CBO analysis states that raising taxes on the wealthy will not hurt the economy; taxes on the rich were cut during the Bush Administration and it didn’t help create jobs, it only increased the deficit; the Democrats won the election and the Republicans need to respond accordingly. They just don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument. Bohner’s only real concern is having to ask House Republicans to go along with letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire and then Republicans will be seen as breaking their Grover Norquist pledges. That’s what this nonsense is all about. The Republicans are more concerned with serving Norquist than the American people.

The Republicans have become nothing more than an American hindrance, an obstacle that is constantly getting in the way of our country trying to move forward. They no longer serve this country. They only serve themselves. They need to stop this anti-American behavior one way or another. It’s gone on long enough. Bush and the Republicans said that they had a mandate when Bush won his second term by a margin of 35 electoral votes. Obama has won by a margin of 126 electoral votes. Now THAT’S a mandate. Taxes on the wealthy go up.

Nov 08, 2012 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JRS99 wrote:

The CBO said that it would not affect the economy? Yet they said 200,000 people would lose their jobs! What? Tax deduction reform would have been done by Romney. But he didn’t say to do it like Simpson-Bowles where you pick and chose each tax deduction to eliminate. Instead he brilliantly said there would be a tax deduction cap. For instance you would cap tax deductions, for example, at $25,000 – $50,000. Middle class normally doesn’t go over this threshold. But this would be ironed out in Congress but the principle is there. He also said that for the wealthy they would not get any tax deductions. It wouldn’t hurt small businesses but gets the wealthy that has been getting breaks giving to them by Democrats and Republicans. That’s his first step. If you listened to the debate he continues on with his economic plan. Of course he won’t reduce tax rates for the middle class right away, that would increase our deficit but that’s what Obama was insinuating when he said Romney’s plan would at $5 trillion dollars to the debt. Romney would implement it in steps to avoid adding to the debt and at the same time grow the economy.

However this could have been. Now you’ve got a President who doesn’t have a very good plan. He wants to tax people making over $250,000. The CBO said it would eliminate 200,000 jobs. However, this is a static analysis and doesn’t take a pulse on what small business owners will do. Then to grow the economy he wants to add more teachers. This is laughable. Just wait when he stalls on doing anything on the fiscal cliff till the last minute to get his way. He says he is for America – yeah right he knows he will punish America.

Nov 08, 2012 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Not to be too picky, rokid, but Republicans have been screaming about the deficit since PRECISELY January 20, 2009.
Before that it was “Deficits don’t matter” -DICK Cheney.
The GOP plan worked perfectly: Put eight years of making the rich richer and arms dealers, like DICK Cheney, the richest of them all, on the American (Taxpayer) Express card. Then send the bill to the Dems in ’09 and then blame them for not selling out the middle class to pay it in 2012.
Only one problem: The middle class decided they weren’t down with that, and voted Obama back in.
But “Aw, H*ll Naw!” says the Rich, “We ain’t payin’ you Repubs under the table to let us git taxed like them middle class shlubs! Git in there and git us some tax cuts! And while yer at it, make it illegal for wimminfolk ta vote.”
See, you might think logical people in the GOP would be saying, “Hey, we gotta take it down a notch if we want to win any electionhs in the future.” But OH SNAP! There ARE NO LOGICAL PEOPLE LEFT! Only Bachmanns and Boehners! And all they are thinking is, “How can we stop Democrats from being allowed to vote?”
That’s it. They don’t think they are wrong, they think the American People are wrong, and they must all be burned out like ticks if we are ever to reach our potential as the greatest country and the freest people in the world.

Nov 08, 2012 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

” Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013″

The key words here are “MUCH” and “IN 2013″

The economy is already on the skids. Which means it’s BARELY showing growth. By what scale is “much” used in this article? 100%? or the stellar 2% growth of last quarter? Basically what I’m asking is this a 10% drop in overall growth as in .2% of real growth or is this a .7% drop which would be closer to 45% of total growth. It matters.

Have long term scenarios been run? It says for 2013 but what about out until 2020-40-etc?

Nov 08, 2012 10:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Let’s get this straight; enough of the bullcrap! Increasing Personal Income Tax Rates will have NO EFFECT on Small Businesses. The owners of small business won’t be making enough money to trigger an increase in their taxes.

This is just the Republicans doing their job; class warfare against the middle and lower classes in favour of their rich masters that don’t want to pay their fair share. Just imagine how fast that deficit would vanish if the rich paid in taxes all of the money they spend on lobbying and buying politicians to keep their taxes from raising! The Deficit would be gone by 2015, even with the increased spending that America needs to get out of this recession.

Nov 08, 2012 11:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

The worthless Republicans will end up caving – the script, and its associated spin, has already been written.

Nov 08, 2012 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Phoenix35 wrote:

We need to implement a flat tax, period. It would lower taxes for everyone.

Nov 08, 2012 11:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@McBob08 I’m also in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy. However, I don’t agree with your numbers. There is not way we would eliminate the deficit by 2015, even if we taxed every cent from the wealthy. We are that deep in the hole. I’m concerned on where you have been getting your information. Earlier you claimed that 68% of our budget is spent on defense and only 4% on welfare. I’m sorry but those numbers are not accurate. I recommend you stop obtaining your information from whatever source you’re receiving it – they are only giving you false information.

Nov 08, 2012 11:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dfbowman wrote:

The CBO said that the tax increase on the wealthy won’t affect growth as bad as they thought. Only 200000 jobs would be lost and growth would slow by just a fraction.

Can we line up 200000 Obama voters and make sure it’s their jobs that get cut if we agree to the tax increase?

We could make it a lottery. Draw out of the Obama ballots and line them up so we can see them when they lose their jobs. Priceless.

Nov 08, 2012 11:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

BioStudies: Look at what the top tax rates were under Clinton and compare those rates to the rates under Bush, and our current rates. Now compare our economy under Clinton to our economy under Bush, and our current economy. Raising the top tax bracket won’t hurt the economy.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, why would it? Corporate America is sitting on trillions of dollars. The rich have been increasing their wealth by double digits for 3 decades now, while the Middle Class has been faltering. If business owners need to hire someone–and that’s the only time they’ll do any hiring, when they NEED to–they’ll hire someone, whether their taxes go up or not. To suggest they wouldn’t because their personal income tax rate goes up from 35% to 39.6% is just utter nonsense. It makes no sense. If a business needs an employee, they’ll hire someone. So let’s drop this canard that raising taxes will hurt job creation. It’s a lie and makes no sense if you just take a moment to think about it. And less than 2% of small businesses would be affected by such a tax increase anyway. You’re being misled, which the GOP does a lot of. You should resent it, not support it.

Nov 08, 2012 11:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whatsnew wrote:

Tax hike for the wealthly won’t come even begin to balance the current spending, nor paydown of the debt whatsoever. Fiscal cliff is over hyped, no way can anyone convince me there is not at least 10% waste, fraud, and savings to be found in every department, program, ect, yes even the military. Fire department heads and hire Walmart managers they’ll show you how to eliminate waste.

Nov 09, 2012 12:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

Excuse me, republicans just lost an election. If the house republicans don’t play ball with Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff then their out on their you know whats in 2 years. There’s no debate here, end the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut spending. Now get it done!

Nov 09, 2012 12:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
kimsarah wrote:

But the wealthy are our job creators.

Nov 09, 2012 2:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
kimsarah wrote:

Republicans still have the upper hand. Just watch the Democrats.

Nov 09, 2012 2:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

The Us can ill afford continued borrowing to fund the Bush Tax Cuts. …. for any beneficiary group.

Nov 09, 2012 5:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

flashrooster your detailed references to tax schemes during various administrations may be technically correct, but you never acknowledge the dot com bubble. That overheated economy generated unprecedented tax revenue. Also, we still had the last throws of ‘hi tech’ manufacturing going on then. Your comparisons imply administrative tax policy is the only economic difference from the bubble build-up to after the pop. Long winded filibusters do not hide your intentions.

Nov 09, 2012 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

I’m pretty much sick of hearing about the “.com” bubble creating the clinton great economy. how did .com improve the bottom lines of every industry class in america? this is just the gop way to minimalize the greatest real economic growth since wwii – and it happened without any support from the gop! it was gingrich that backed down on huge spending bills, not clinton – get a grip, the gop doesn’t give a damn if the country goes down the toilet. return tax rates to clinton levels, stop pumping huge sums of money into wars, and see how fast the deficit comes down. give it a try – obviously the gop way doesn’t work – never has, never will.

Nov 09, 2012 8:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
M.C.McBride wrote:

I agree with the premise of the article. Again, the real issue is the unemployment rate. Both parties seem be off focus on that issue. It is time to focus squarely on jobs. The party that does that will make gains next time around. If it were me, I would make “fair” trade agreements unilaterally that are based on wage rates. I would also hire 100,000 federal doctors and deploy them throughout the nation. Cut lawyers to pay for it. Make small business loans easier for companies that improve efficiency in education and medical care. It isn’t hard to find solution to the job crisis if your not corrupt.

Nov 09, 2012 8:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

There is no evidence to even suggest that the Bush tax cuts have created even one job. The Kochpublicans represent only the wealthy 1%. They continue to learn nothing from the election. The Tea Party is never going to win anything more than local elections. They cling to the “trickle down” economic theory which has failed with the Bush tax cuts and will continue to fail.

Nov 09, 2012 8:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
TimoB wrote:

dfbowman – You must be one of those “compassionate conservatives”… that it makes you happy to see other Americans loose there jobs is sick.

kimsarah – I think you mean Job Cremators. The rich do not magically create jobs… jobs are created by consumer demand.

BillDexter – You give excuses but no proof to support your argument… typical republican response!

Nov 09, 2012 8:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

jcfl I’m sorry you are tired of hearing about the .com economy. I am aware that economics textbooks in America differ greatly from the ones I had back in the 1970ies. More power to you. As you suggest, we WILL be giving it a try. We eagerly await deficits to come down under President Obama.

TimoB I’m not sure what you require proof of – that the .com bubble happened, that it generated a lot of tax revenue or that Clinton became President during it?

Look guys, I’m NOT trying to imply that all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad. President G. W. Bush fu

Nov 09, 2012 9:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Ooooh. Auto edit, my fault, sorry

Continuing – ked up more things than the Three Stooges marathon on New Year’s Day. The social conservatives show up and make everybody sick. I know.

I am really just scared that having open borders and cradle-to grave public welfare/healthcare – with more people riding in it than pulling it – isn’t sustainable. I dunno if any of you actually believe that it is, or if you don’t care as long as conservatives are crushed.

Nov 09, 2012 10:56am EST  --  Report as abuse

Typical how the headline of this Article is Headlined, should have been “Tax Hike for Wealthy will slow economy down .25 compared to giving it to only individuals making less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000″. I guess this is for people that don’t read past the Headlines and no other source of info like the CBO Report itself.

Nov 09, 2012 11:49am EST  --  Report as abuse

How much did Reuters pay this guy to stand out there for the Photo-Op.

Nov 09, 2012 11:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
GreginDenver wrote:

8 out of the 10 richest counties in the US voted big for Obama. I lived in Aspen, I know what a Lear Jet Liberal is.

They can have them and I propose an Asset tax – not a higher income tax. Take their holdings – they deserve it, also, then they will have to work harder for more income.

Hey, we lost the ‘ol Country, the Hollweirds, Wall Street cronies, Lobbyist, et. al. should pay through the nose. They left us and are responsible for Obamacare.

God help us all, except the…?

Nov 09, 2012 12:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Perhaps Obama’s tax the rich plan wouldn’t kill growth, but given that it is expected to net $40B in incremental revenue while he blew last year’s budget by $1,600, it won’t even begin to put a dent in our debt/deficit either

Is that the type of “arithmetic” Bill Clinton was referring to? Hopefully not….

Nov 09, 2012 3:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
el-verda wrote:

Comments Submitted (10)
Comments Removed (10)
Abuse Reports (6)

Mr Editor.. Why are my comments being censored??
1510 11/9/2012

Nov 09, 2012 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

I wonder if Obama’s “tax the rich plan” – includes his own wealth or if, like national healthcare, he’s exempt because he’s “better than the rest of us”?

Nov 14, 2012 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.