Democrats & Republicans United

[Grenartia]

INdeed, it is a fallacy to believe that government is the best means to address any issue other than the self-interests of politicians and their cronies in the public and private sector.

Because the private sector can obviously be trusted to regulate the private sector, and can obviously better make sure that the poor and disenfranchised are given a good opportunity to succeed without the government. Obviously everybody who's poor and/or homeless wants to be, because they 'd go out and get jobs if they didn't.

That's what I read when I saw that sentence.

[Obamacult]

Lets see:

Amusingly and predictably, I am attacked and accused of being a fraudulent data manipulating fascist, bias, spamming, cherry-picking, intolerant, and closed-minded for the ‘heinous offense’ of ……

………..presenting empirical research from over 25 separate disparate and distinct sources around the globe of serious and rigorous research from academia, business, and non-governmental organizations in peer-reviewed economics journals like….. the National Tax Journal, American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Canadian Journal of Economics, Journal of Public Economics, European Economic Review, et al…

Yet, the same bevy of critical posters have offered little in the way of substantive and objective empirical evidence refuting anything in the research I have offered except the following fallacious anecdotes:

Empirical evidence is the Eisenhower boom and the Clinton boom, both in eras of raised taxes, where the Great Depression and the current recession started after substantial tax cuts. But you'll reject this as "opinion" anyway, because you can't be bothered to read a history book.—Death Metal

Bullshit.

Plus, all of those research papers so far (I've read through most of them) neglect to discern between higher income tax payers and middle income tax payers, something that's kind of important. It's actually common knowledge that middle class tax cuts help growth. I don't think anyone's disputing that. The problem is that he's lumping middle class tax cuts in with high income tax cuts, something which has been shown to not in any significant manner improve growth rates.---Mavopren

More bullshit.


For the record.

The validity and reliability of peer reviewed research is not discredit simply because of where it gets picked up and cited. Moreover, you would never find this research cited in any leftwing cite because it is so damning to progressive misconceptions and dogma – hence the only place your going to find it is in peer reviewed economics journals or conservative blogs. In sum, it is an obvious fallacious and dishonest argument to criticize research because of where it is posted.

The reason why the editor from the Tax Foundation did not present research that correlates high tax rates and economic growth is because there has been none in the last 15 years, at least none that has made it into peer reviewed economic journals.

Moreover, Mavopren’s weak fallacious argument that the research neglects 'to discern between higher income tax payers and middle income tax payers' is pure bullshit. Indeed, several studies specifically examined this issue and found a strong and direct correlation that supported the hypothesis that taxing high earners or progressive tax rates are damaging to growth. Moreover, most of the research confirms that the most destructive tax is higher corporate taxes, which by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure certainly don’t qualify as a middle class tax.

With respect to Black Metal’s fallacious and simplistic argument regarding growth during the Eisenhower administration – more than a few of the studies examined the US economy during this post war period and have subsequently debunked this base view.

With respect to the studies being cherry-picked and bias – the list includes researchers from:

The former chief of Obama’s council of economic advisers, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, University of Nottingham, University of Madrid, Victoria University of Wellington Business School, Grant MacEwan University, Hanyang University in Seoul, University of California, University of Kent, etc….

Lastly, the economic science skeptics and deniers in the peanut gallery assert that I cherry-picked the data -- then the logical and intellectually honest course of action is to present your own peer reviewed research debunking the academic research I have provided. Yet predictably, not a single study was forthcoming. Now, I ask you, where is the bias and intellectual rigidity? Moreover, I am always amused to be labelled intolerant and closed-minded when I am on leftwing forums debating mobs of progressives in which I am usually the only libertarian.

You get the picture.

In summary I have included the research and with it the sources (mostly peer reviewed economics journals) so any newcomers to the thread don't have to go hunting for it:

Research:

1 Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012). Canadian provinces (1977-2006) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.

2 Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012). U.S. Post-WWII exogenous changes in personal and corporate income taxes Negative A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters. A 1 percentage point cut in the average corporate income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 0.4 percent in the first quarter and by 0.6 percent after one year.

3 Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011). 17 OECD countries (Early 1970s to 2004) Negative Taxes on income and profit are most damaging to economic growth over the long run, followed by deficits, and then consumption taxes.

4 Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011). 21 OECD countries (1971 to 2004) Negative Corporate taxes most harmful, followed by taxes on personal income, consumption, and property. Progressivity of PIT harms growth. A 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes (both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the long run. Corporate taxes, both in terms of the statutory rate and depreciation allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth. Raising the top marginal rate on personal income reduces productivity growth.

5 Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011). U.S (1912 to 2006) Negative Cut in the average marginal tax rate of one percentage point raises next year’s per capita GDP by around 0.5%.

6 Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010). U.S. Post-WWII (104 tax changes, 65 exogenous)
Negative Tax (federal revenue) increase of 1% of GDP leads to a fall in output of 3% after about 2 years, mostly through negative effects on investment.

7 Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010). OECD countries (fiscal stimuli and fiscal adjustments, 1970 to 2007) Negative Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. Fiscal consolidations based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to succeed at reducing deficits and debt and less likely to create recessions.

8 International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010). 15 advanced countries (170 fiscal consolidations over the last 30 years) Negative 1% tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3% after two years.

9 Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008). U.S. states (1970-1999, 5 year panels) Negative Robust negative effect of state and local tax burden. Multi-year panels mitigate misspecified lag effects, serial correlation, and measurement error.

10 N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007). U.S. states Negative Taxes directed towards public investments first add then subtract from GDP.

11 Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005). 70 countries (1980 - 1997, cross-sectional and 5 year panels) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.

12 Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004). Counties separated by state borders (1960 to 1990) Negative States that raised income taxes averaged a 3.4% reduction in per capita income.

13 Marc Tomljanovich, The role of state fiscal policy in state economic growth, 22 Contemporary Economic Policy 318-330 (2004). U.S. states (1972 to 1998, multi-year panels) Negative Higher tax rates negatively affect short run growth, but not long run growth.

14 Olivier Blanchard & Robert Perotti, An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output, 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1329-1368 (2002). U.S. Post-WWII (VAR/event study) Negative Positive tax shocks, or unexpected increases in total revenue, negatively affect private investment and GDP.

15 F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990), 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 (2001). 23 OECD countries (1951 to 1990) Negative Effective marginal income tax rates negatively correlated with GDP growth.
16 Stefan Folster & Magnus Henrekson, Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries, 45 European Economic Review 1501-1520 (2001). Rich countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Tax revenue as a share of GDP negatively correlated with GDP growth.

17 M. Bleaney, N. Gemmell & R. Kneller, Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run, 34 Canadian Journal of Economics 36-57 (2001). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth. Consumption taxes are not distortionary.

18 R. Kneller, M. Bleaney & N. Gemmell, Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 74 Journal of Public Economics 171-190 (1999). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth.

19 Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997). U.S. states (1977 to 1993) Negative Progressivity of income taxes negatively affects GDP growth.

20 Enrique Mendoza, G. Milesi-Ferretti, & P. Asea, On the Effectiveness of Tax Policy in Altering Long-Run Growth: Harberger’s Superneutrality Conjecture, 66 Journal of Public Economics 99-126 (1997). 18 OECD countries (1965-1991, 5 year panels) None Estimated effective tax rates on labor and capital harm investment, but effect on growth is insignificant. Effective consumption taxes increase investment, but not growth. Overall tax burden levels have no effect on investment or growth.

21 Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997). Developed and developing countries Negative Tax-financed spending reduces growth in developed countries, increases growth in developing countries.

22 John Mullen & Martin Williams, Marginal tax rates and state economic growth, 24 Regional Science and Urban Economics 687-705 (1994). U.S. states (1969 to 1986) Negative Higher marginal tax rates reduce GDP growth.

23 William Easterly & S. Rebelo, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation, 32 Journal of Monetary Economics 417-458 (1993). Developed and developing countries None Effects of taxation difficult to isolate empirically.

24 Reinhard Koester & Roger Kormendi, Taxation, Aggregate Activity and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence on Some Supply-Side Hypotheses, 27 Economic Inquiry 367-86 (1989). 63 countries Negative Controlling for average tax rates, increases in marginal tax rates reduce economic activity. Progressivity reduces growth.

25 Jay Helms, The effect of state and local taxes on economic growth: a time series-cross section approach, 67 Review of Economics and Statistics 574-582 (1985). U.S. states (1965 to 1979) Negative Revenue used to fund transfer payments retards growth.

26 Claudio J. Katz, Vincent A. Mahler & Michael G. Franz, The impact of taxes on growth and distribution in developed capitalist countries: a cross-national study, 77 American Political Science Review 871-886 (1983). 22 developed countries None Taxes reduce saving but not growth or investment.

Sources:

William McBride, CRS, At Odds with Academic Studies, Continues to Claim No Harm in Raising Top Earners’ Tax Rates, Tax Foundation Tax Policy Blog, Dec. 14, 2012, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/crs-odds- ... -tax-rates.

William McBride, The Great Recession and Volatility in the Sources of Personal Income, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 316 (June 13, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/great- ... nal-income.

Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).

Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010).

International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... pdf/c3.pdf.

For a summary, see David Logan, The proper role of taxes in deficit and debt reductions, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 278 (July 29, 2011), http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/pro ... -reduction.

Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008).

Id.

See, e.g., William McBride, Tax Freedom Day 2012, Tax Foundation Special Report No. 198 (Apr. 2, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/specia ... m-day-2012.

Scott Hodge & Alex Raut, Individual tax rates also impact business activity due to high number of pass-throughs, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 314 (June 05, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/indivi ... s-throughs.

Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012).

Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax and economic growth, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 620 (2008).

Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).

They use a Pooled Mean Group estimator, which “allows a selective treatment of variables—and of the speed of adjustment into equilibrium—with respect to whether its coefficient should be constrained to equality across all countries or left country-specific.” See Arnold et al., supra note 15.

Jens Arnold, Do tax structures affect aggregate economic growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of OECD countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 643 (2008).

Laura Vartia, How do taxes affect investment and productivity? Industry level analysis of OECD countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 656 (2008).

Cyrille Schwellnus & Jens Arnold, Do corporate taxes reduce productivity and investment at the firm-level? Cross-country evidence from the Amadeus dataset, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 641 (2008).

See Johannson et al., supra note 14, at 9.

See Hodge & Raut, supra note 12.

Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).

This is a merged series of data, which is based on adjusted gross income (AGI) until 1983 but AGI minus capital income after 1983. These are clearly two very different concepts of income, but the authors argue that average marginal tax rates based on the two measures of income are highly correlated. State marginal rates prior to 1979 are based on BEA data on per capita state personal income and a program by Jon Bakija called IncTaxCalc, which the authors suspect is less accurate but justifiable based on the fact that state income taxes are a small share of total income taxes.

Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005), http://www.aiecon.org/advanced/suggeste ... sug334.pdf.

Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012).

Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011).

Like Arnold et al., they use “heterogeneous panel” econometric methods, known as Mean Group and Pooled Mean Group techniques.
Id.

See Mertens & Ravn, supra note 13.

Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante, Corporate Dividend and Capital Gains Taxation: A Comparison of the United States to other Developed Nations, Ernst & Young, February 2012. http://www.theasi.org/assets/EY_ASI_Div ... -02-03.pdf

Gerald Prante & Austin John, Top marginal effective tax rates by state and by source of income, 2012 tax law vs. 2013 scheduled tax law, Working Paper, Nov. 15, 2012, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2176526.

See Arnold et al., supra note 15.

See Hodge & Raut, supra note 12.

See Mertens & Ravn, supra note 13.

[Jocabia]

*SNIP*

Actually, you're attacked for not actually replying to the reasoned discussion around sources you presented. When you got your ass handed to you about the quotes from the founding fathers, you just abandoned that line of argument like you never even brought it up, never acknowledging that you were factually wrong.

When your sources are shown to be flawed for very specific reasons, and when you're asking to properly link your sources, you just keep reposing what you already said without ever actually properly linking your source or addressing those reasons. "Nuh-uh" is not the same as addressing those reasons.

Referencing is not the same as citing. For example, we know that much of what you copied here, you copied verbatim from other sources, but you did not credit where you got this information from by, say, linking to it. A study of studies that specifically cherry-picks which data to examine and then claims that it is all the studies that have ever been done doesn't pass muster when being evaluated as a scientific study.

No amount of crying about being picked on will change the requirements for scientific analysis. I'm sorry that is inconvenient.

EDIT: But let's have some fun. If I can find a published study in a peer-reviewed economic journal that they did not include in their study of "all the studies" and that disagrees with their findings, you'll donate $1000 American dollars to Senator Feinstein.

Since no such article exists, you should have no trouble making such a bet, yes?

[Jocabia]

The reason why the editor from the Tax Foundation did not present research that correlates high tax rates and economic growth is because there has been none in the last 15 years, at least none that has made it into peer reviewed economic journals.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf

This certainly made it to peer-review. It was later withdrawn due to political pressure along completely partisan lines because of it's inconvenient truths.

So much for your "none" claim, eh?

As for the conclusion, there was a study done by Reagan's own team that concluded that there is little evidence that the 80's recovery had anything to do with lowering taxes.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10943.pdf

So let's look at our lifetimes. Economic growth in the 80's was due to monetary policy. In the late 80's, early 90's, when economic growth had stagnated, Bush raised taxes on the rich and not long after a nearly unprecedented economic boon began. You might argue they are not linked, but you certainly cannot argue that this occurred and did not prevent the economic boon. During the boon, Clinton raised taxes. The boon continued. And then George Walker Bush became President and lowered taxes on the rich (and everyone else) and the economy collapsed.

Now, again, you might argue the link isn't there in these events, but this was the chain of events. It's a fact that America's periods of economic growth over the last 40 years does not correlate with any consistency with cutting taxes on the rich, was not attributed to taxes cuts during the times when it did correlate, not even by those who made the cuts, and most correlates with raising taxes on the rich.

In other words, the data doesn't say what you'd like it to say.

[Free Soviets]

The reason why the editor from the Tax Foundation did not present research that correlates high tax rates and economic growth is because there has been none in the last 15 years, at least none that has made it into peer reviewed economic journals.

of course, sweden still exists. which is why, for example, bergh and henrikson concluded in 2011 that;

Studies that disaggregate taxes and expenditure typically seem to find that if the policy objective is economic growth there are two consequences: (i) direct taxes on income are worse than indirect taxes, and (ii) social transfers are worse than public expenditure on investment including human capital, which, if anything, increases growth.

Hence, our results do not imply that government must shrink for growth to increase. There is potential for increasing growth by restructuring taxes and expenditure so that the negative effects on growth for a given government size are minimized...The specific mix of institutions and the emergent idiosyncratic interactions among them are key determinants of economic performance.

Both the Scandinavian and the Anglo-Saxon welfare states seem able to deliver high growth rates for very different levels of government size. This does not mean low-tax countries can increase taxes without expecting negative effects on growth, nor that the various mechanisms by which high taxes distort the economy do not apply in Scandinavia. A more incisive interpretation is that there is something omitted from the analysis that explains how Scandinavian countries combine high taxes and high economic growth.

or, as i said when i pointed this out to you back in august:

governments spending lots stupidly are worse at economic growth than governments spending little. but governments spending lots smartly are apparently able to sidestep or minimize the problem somehow. i believe the technical term for this finding is 'duh'.

you are a lying hack.

[Dimar]

In a democracy, things are done by both parties doing give and take.

In a democracy, there are more than two parties. Or even better, none at all...

[Free Soviets]

In a democracy, things are done by both parties doing give and take.

In a democracy, there are more than two parties. Or even better, none at all...

unless we are talking about a democracy of less than 100 people, parties are necessary. something like them will exist regardless, and trying to keep them away just means the coalition-forming and deal-making will happen in ways not fully visible to the voters.

[Mavorpen]

Amusingly and predictably, I am attacked and accused of being a fraudulent data manipulating fascist, bias, spamming, cherry-picking, intolerant, and closed-minded for the ‘heinous offense’ of ……

………..presenting empirical research from over 25 separate disparate and distinct sources around the globe of serious and rigorous research from academia, business, and non-governmental organizations in peer-reviewed economics journals like….. the National Tax Journal, American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Canadian Journal of Economics, Journal of Public Economics, European Economic Review, et al…

No, you are "attacked" for quoting a conservative organization, neglecting to state where your source comes from, etc. That's it. Not sure where you get "fraudulent data manipulating fascist" from. Other than that, criticisms have been of the conclusions of the studies themselves. They fail to differentiate between high income taxes and middle income taxes. They fail to discern what level of taxes they are talking about, instead concluding that all taxes have negative affects on growth, despite empirical evidence showing otherwise.

Yet, the same bevy of critical posters have offered little in the way of substantive and objective empirical evidence refuting anything in the research I have offered except the following fallacious anecdotes:

The validity and reliability of peer reviewed research is not discredit simply because of where it gets picked up and cited.

No one said that. It was simply pointed out that the website has a conservative basis, and is thus going to cherry pick research papers, and conclude that every single empirical research done agrees with a small percentage of the actual amount of empirical research.

Moreover, you would never find this research cited in any leftwing cite because it is so damning to progressive misconceptions and dogma – hence the only place your going to find it is in peer reviewed economics journals or conservative blogs. In sum, it is an obvious fallacious and dishonest argument to criticize research because of where it is posted.

No, you would never find this research cited because they aren't relevant.

The reason why the editor from the Tax Foundation did not present research that correlates high tax rates and economic growth is because there has been none in the last 15 years, at least none that has made it into peer reviewed economic journals.

No one's saying anything about high tax rates and growth. No one.

Moreover, Mavopren’s weak fallacious argument that the research neglects 'to discern between higher income tax payers and middle income tax payers' is pure bullshit.

Learn what the fuck "fallacious" means.

Indeed, several studies specifically examined this issue and found a strong and direct correlation that supported the hypothesis that taxing high earners or progressive tax rates are damaging to growth.

No they haven't. They found that, and I quote:

The fiscal cliff would also push the top marginal rate on personal income to over 50 percent in some states, such as California, Hawaii, and New York—higher than all but a few of our trading partners.[31] We already have the most progressive tax system in the industrialized world, according to the OECD, and this would make it more so. The OECD finds such steeply progressive taxation reduces productivity and economic growth.

You should try reading your own source. The source states that the top marginal rate on personal being over 50% would be steep enough to reduce productivity and economic growth. It says nothing close to "all progressive taxation damage growth."

Moreover, most of the research confirms that the most destructive tax is higher corporate taxes, which by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure certainly don’t qualify as a middle class tax.

Lovely. So you don't know what the difference between personal income taxes and corporate taxes are. Why am I not surprised.

With respect to the studies being cherry-picked and bias – the list includes researchers from:

The former chief of Obama’s council of economic advisers, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, University of Nottingham, University of Madrid, Victoria University of Wellington Business School, Grant MacEwan University, Hanyang University in Seoul, University of California, University of Kent, etc….

Which says nothing about the cherrypicking and bias of your source.

Lastly, the economic science skeptics and deniers in the peanut gallery assert that I cherry-picked the data -- then the logical and intellectually honest course of action is to present your own peer reviewed research debunking the academic research I have provided.

No one said you cherry picked the data. Stop straw manning.

Yet predictably, not a single study was forthcoming. Now, I ask you, where is the bias and intellectual rigidity? Moreover, I am always amused to be labelled intolerant and closed-minded when I am on leftwing forums debating mobs of progressives in which I am usually the only libertarian.

Yeah, bias is still with you.

[Death Metal]

Yet, the same bevy of critical posters have offered little in the way of substantive and objective empirical evidence refuting anything in the research I have offered except the following fallacious anecdotes:

Empirical evidence is the Eisenhower boom and the Clinton boom, both in eras of raised taxes, where the Great Depression and the current recession started after substantial tax cuts. But you'll reject this as "opinion" anyway, because you can't be bothered to read a history book.—Death Metal

That's not an anecdote. That's REALITY.

I can just present this HISTORICAL DATA because I don't need fictionalized studies.

[Mavorpen]

Yet, the same bevy of critical posters have offered little in the way of substantive and objective empirical evidence refuting anything in the research I have offered except the following fallacious anecdotes:

That's not an anecdote. That's REALITY.

I can just present this HISTORICAL DATA because I don't need fictionalized studies.

What!? You mean you didn't live during the Eisenhower era? You lied!

[Death Metal]

That's not an anecdote. That's REALITY.

I can just present this HISTORICAL DATA because I don't need fictionalized studies.

What!? You mean you didn't live during the Eisenhower era? You lied!

Well I certainly lived in the Clinton/Bush ones. Clinton era, everything was booming. Bush cuts the taxes, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerhKABOOM we get a recession.

[Obamacult]

Actually, you're attacked for not actually replying to the reasoned discussion around sources you presented. When you got your ass handed to you about the quotes from the founding fathers, you just abandoned that line of argument like you never even brought it up, never acknowledging that you were factually wrong.

I have a life, hence I don't have time to entertain every rebut and response on a website dominated by leftwingers when I am usually the only opposing view on the thread. If you are upset tht I didn't respond - then now is your opportunity to reproduce the post below and I will put yours at the top of my list.

When your sources are shown to be flawed for very specific reasons, and when you're asking to properly link your sources, you just keep reposing what you already said without ever actually properly linking your source or addressing those reasons. "Nuh-uh" is not the same as addressing those reasons.

Take a look at the top of the page, I have provided 'spoilers' to both the research and the sources. However, when I post citations to legitimate peer reviewed research; I generally don't have the time to post links to every source whose data and conclusions can easily be assertained by a quick google search. I am not your mother or the government. I am a libertarian, hence if we question the veracity of any arguments, we do our own research.

We call it individual responsibiity. And I will demonstrate it below.

Referencing is not the same as citing. For example, we know that much of what you copied here, you copied verbatim from other sources, but you did not credit where you got this information from by, say, linking to it. A study of studies that specifically cherry-picks which data to examine and then claims that it is all the studies that have ever been done doesn't pass muster when being evaluated as a scientific study.

Again, I am not your mother or the government. I provided research which included the name, authors, journal of publication, dates, etc. Moreover, when the whining commenced I provided links and sources:

Research:

1 Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012). Canadian provinces (1977-2006) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.

2 Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012). U.S. Post-WWII exogenous changes in personal and corporate income taxes Negative A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters. A 1 percentage point cut in the average corporate income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 0.4 percent in the first quarter and by 0.6 percent after one year.

3 Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011). 17 OECD countries (Early 1970s to 2004) Negative Taxes on income and profit are most damaging to economic growth over the long run, followed by deficits, and then consumption taxes.

4 Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011). 21 OECD countries (1971 to 2004) Negative Corporate taxes most harmful, followed by taxes on personal income, consumption, and property. Progressivity of PIT harms growth. A 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes (both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the long run. Corporate taxes, both in terms of the statutory rate and depreciation allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth. Raising the top marginal rate on personal income reduces productivity growth.

5 Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011). U.S (1912 to 2006) Negative Cut in the average marginal tax rate of one percentage point raises next year’s per capita GDP by around 0.5%.

6 Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010). U.S. Post-WWII (104 tax changes, 65 exogenous)
Negative Tax (federal revenue) increase of 1% of GDP leads to a fall in output of 3% after about 2 years, mostly through negative effects on investment.

7 Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010). OECD countries (fiscal stimuli and fiscal adjustments, 1970 to 2007) Negative Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. Fiscal consolidations based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to succeed at reducing deficits and debt and less likely to create recessions.

8 International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010). 15 advanced countries (170 fiscal consolidations over the last 30 years) Negative 1% tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3% after two years.

9 Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008). U.S. states (1970-1999, 5 year panels) Negative Robust negative effect of state and local tax burden. Multi-year panels mitigate misspecified lag effects, serial correlation, and measurement error.

10 N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007). U.S. states Negative Taxes directed towards public investments first add then subtract from GDP.

11 Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005). 70 countries (1980 - 1997, cross-sectional and 5 year panels) Negative Reducing corporate income tax 1 percentage point raises annual growth by 0.1 to 0.2 points.

12 Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004). Counties separated by state borders (1960 to 1990) Negative States that raised income taxes averaged a 3.4% reduction in per capita income.

13 Marc Tomljanovich, The role of state fiscal policy in state economic growth, 22 Contemporary Economic Policy 318-330 (2004). U.S. states (1972 to 1998, multi-year panels) Negative Higher tax rates negatively affect short run growth, but not long run growth.

14 Olivier Blanchard & Robert Perotti, An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output, 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1329-1368 (2002). U.S. Post-WWII (VAR/event study) Negative Positive tax shocks, or unexpected increases in total revenue, negatively affect private investment and GDP.

15 F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990), 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 (2001). 23 OECD countries (1951 to 1990) Negative Effective marginal income tax rates negatively correlated with GDP growth.
16 Stefan Folster & Magnus Henrekson, Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries, 45 European Economic Review 1501-1520 (2001). Rich countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Tax revenue as a share of GDP negatively correlated with GDP growth.

17 M. Bleaney, N. Gemmell & R. Kneller, Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run, 34 Canadian Journal of Economics 36-57 (2001). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth. Consumption taxes are not distortionary.

18 R. Kneller, M. Bleaney & N. Gemmell, Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 74 Journal of Public Economics 171-190 (1999). OECD countries (1970 to 1995) Negative Distortionary taxes reduce GDP growth.

19 Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997). U.S. states (1977 to 1993) Negative Progressivity of income taxes negatively affects GDP growth.

20 Enrique Mendoza, G. Milesi-Ferretti, & P. Asea, On the Effectiveness of Tax Policy in Altering Long-Run Growth: Harberger’s Superneutrality Conjecture, 66 Journal of Public Economics 99-126 (1997). 18 OECD countries (1965-1991, 5 year panels) None Estimated effective tax rates on labor and capital harm investment, but effect on growth is insignificant. Effective consumption taxes increase investment, but not growth. Overall tax burden levels have no effect on investment or growth.

21 Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997). Developed and developing countries Negative Tax-financed spending reduces growth in developed countries, increases growth in developing countries.

22 John Mullen & Martin Williams, Marginal tax rates and state economic growth, 24 Regional Science and Urban Economics 687-705 (1994). U.S. states (1969 to 1986) Negative Higher marginal tax rates reduce GDP growth.

23 William Easterly & S. Rebelo, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation, 32 Journal of Monetary Economics 417-458 (1993). Developed and developing countries None Effects of taxation difficult to isolate empirically.

24 Reinhard Koester & Roger Kormendi, Taxation, Aggregate Activity and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence on Some Supply-Side Hypotheses, 27 Economic Inquiry 367-86 (1989). 63 countries Negative Controlling for average tax rates, increases in marginal tax rates reduce economic activity. Progressivity reduces growth.

25 Jay Helms, The effect of state and local taxes on economic growth: a time series-cross section approach, 67 Review of Economics and Statistics 574-582 (1985). U.S. states (1965 to 1979) Negative Revenue used to fund transfer payments retards growth.

26 Claudio J. Katz, Vincent A. Mahler & Michael G. Franz, The impact of taxes on growth and distribution in developed capitalist countries: a cross-national study, 77 American Political Science Review 871-886 (1983). 22 developed countries None Taxes reduce saving but not growth or investment.

Sources:

William McBride, CRS, At Odds with Academic Studies, Continues to Claim No Harm in Raising Top Earners’ Tax Rates, Tax Foundation Tax Policy Blog, Dec. 14, 2012, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/crs-odds- ... -tax-rates.

William McBride, The Great Recession and Volatility in the Sources of Personal Income, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 316 (June 13, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/great- ... nal-income.

Christina Romer & David Romer, The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).

Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010).

International Monetary Fund, Will it hurt? Macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation, in World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing (2010), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... pdf/c3.pdf.

For a summary, see David Logan, The proper role of taxes in deficit and debt reductions, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 278 (July 29, 2011), http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/pro ... -reduction.

Robert Reed, The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth, 61 National Tax Journal 57-80 (2008).

Id.

See, e.g., William McBride, Tax Freedom Day 2012, Tax Foundation Special Report No. 198 (Apr. 2, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/specia ... m-day-2012.

Scott Hodge & Alex Raut, Individual tax rates also impact business activity due to high number of pass-throughs, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 314 (June 05, 2012), http://taxfoundation.org/article/indivi ... s-throughs.

Karel Mertens & Morten Ravn, The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012).

Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax and economic growth, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 620 (2008).

Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).

They use a Pooled Mean Group estimator, which “allows a selective treatment of variables—and of the speed of adjustment into equilibrium—with respect to whether its coefficient should be constrained to equality across all countries or left country-specific.” See Arnold et al., supra note 15.

Jens Arnold, Do tax structures affect aggregate economic growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of OECD countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 643 (2008).

Laura Vartia, How do taxes affect investment and productivity? Industry level analysis of OECD countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 656 (2008).

Cyrille Schwellnus & Jens Arnold, Do corporate taxes reduce productivity and investment at the firm-level? Cross-country evidence from the Amadeus dataset, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 641 (2008).

See Johannson et al., supra note 14, at 9.

See Hodge & Raut, supra note 12.

Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).

This is a merged series of data, which is based on adjusted gross income (AGI) until 1983 but AGI minus capital income after 1983. These are clearly two very different concepts of income, but the authors argue that average marginal tax rates based on the two measures of income are highly correlated. State marginal rates prior to 1979 are based on BEA data on per capita state personal income and a program by Jon Bakija called IncTaxCalc, which the authors suspect is less accurate but justifiable based on the fact that state income taxes are a small share of total income taxes.

Young Lee & Roger Gordon, Tax Structure and Economic Growth, 89 Journal of Public Economics 1027-1043 (2005), http://www.aiecon.org/advanced/suggeste ... sug334.pdf.

Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012).

Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011).

Like Arnold et al., they use “heterogeneous panel” econometric methods, known as Mean Group and Pooled Mean Group techniques.
Id.

See Mertens & Ravn, supra note 13.

Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante, Corporate Dividend and Capital Gains Taxation: A Comparison of the United States to other Developed Nations, Ernst & Young, February 2012. http://www.theasi.org/assets/EY_ASI_Div ... -02-03.pdf

Gerald Prante & Austin John, Top marginal effective tax rates by state and by source of income, 2012 tax law vs. 2013 scheduled tax law, Working Paper, Nov. 15, 2012, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2176526.

See Arnold et al., supra note 15.

See Hodge & Raut, supra note 12.

See Mertens & Ravn, supra note 13.

In contrast, as the only libertarian on most threads, when I ask those opposed to my views to provide a shred of fact, logic or empirical evidence -- my requests are denied or met with derision. See Death Metal and Mavopren above.

EDIT: But let's have some fun. If I can find a published study in a peer-reviewed economic journal that they did not include in their study of "all the studies" and that disagrees with their findings, you'll donate $1000 American dollars to Senator Feinstein.

You should note that not all of the research I presented was negative regarding the effects of taxation on growth. A few studies found minimal or no correlation. Moreover, the assertion by the Tax Foundation regarding the derth of peer reviewed research was based on the last 15 years. It does not include the outliers in research before 1995.

And no, I will not entertain a typically jaded 'wager in which I am forced to provide ten studies confirming tax rates detrimental effect on growth to your single study suggesting no effect.

[Obamacult]

The reason why the editor from the Tax Foundation did not present research that correlates high tax rates and economic growth is because there has been none in the last 15 years, at least none that has made it into peer reviewed economic journals.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf

This certainly made it to peer-review. It was later withdrawn due to political pressure along completely partisan lines because of it's inconvenient truths.

So much for your "none" claim, eh?

As for the conclusion, there was a study done by Reagan's own team that concluded that there is little evidence that the 80's recovery had anything to do with lowering taxes.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10943.pdf

So let's look at our lifetimes. Economic growth in the 80's was due to monetary policy. In the late 80's, early 90's, when economic growth had stagnated, Bush raised taxes on the rich and not long after a nearly unprecedented economic boon began. You might argue they are not linked, but you certainly cannot argue that this occurred and did not prevent the economic boon. During the boon, Clinton raised taxes. The boon continued. And then George Walker Bush became President and lowered taxes on the rich (and everyone else) and the economy collapsed.

Now, again, you might argue the link isn't there in these events, but this was the chain of events. It's a fact that America's periods of economic growth over the last 40 years does not correlate with any consistency with cutting taxes on the rich, was not attributed to taxes cuts during the times when it did correlate, not even by those who made the cuts, and most correlates with raising taxes on the rich.

In other words, the data doesn't say what you'd like it to say.

With respect to the CRS study by Hungerford that you cited:

A recent Congressional Research Service report to Congress purported to show no link between the top income tax rates and economic growth. The report, written by CRS staffer Thomas L. Hungerford, was titled "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945", CRS 7-5700, R42729, September 14, 2012. The report's methods were so seriously flawed that the study could not possibly pick up any relationship between taxes and growth, making its results, or lack of them, meaningless. The report has since been withdrawn from the CRS web site.
This type of CRS report to Congress is not available to the public on the Library of Congress web site. These reports to Congress can only be accessed on line at the CRS by Members of Congress and their staffs. Often, however, the reports are released by the Members of Congress, their staff, or CRS employees, and are picked up by other web sites. The Hungerford paper is still being cited on various websites – including the New York Times.

There are two glaring errors in the study's approach. One is that it looks at the wrong time frame, the one year change in the rate of growth or productivity versus the change in the top tax rates. That is easier than looking at multi-year averages with lags, but it is wrong. It takes one to five years for a reduction in the tax on capital income to generate all the associated additions to the stock of equipment, and between one and ten years for structures. So productivity and income rise significantly, but gradually, after a tax cut that makes investment more attractive. Looking only at the first year effect throws out about 95 percent of the outcome. It is like looking under the streetlamp for car keys that were dropped in the parking lot many yards away, because that is where the light is.

The other major error is that it does not hold other factors constant. Shifts in monetary policy, changes in other taxes, regulatory actions, even weather-related effects on the economy can have significant impacts on the measured growth rate in a given year. If the tax change in the top rates is only one of many events during the year, its effects may be hidden in the statistical noise, especially if the other events are not even in the model. Indeed, one of the few partially correct observations in the study is that the top rates affect so few taxpayers that it might be wrong to expect to find a large impact on total GDP. That is all the more reason to make sure that other variables are accounted for, to reduce the noise.-- Stephen Etin, Tax Foundation

Source: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/retracted ... till-cited

Indeed, the other study you referred to that was issued in 1989 regarding the Reagan boom finds no correlation between lower income taxes and growth. I did produce a few other outliers that matched these findings in my original post and sources.

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

[Death Metal]

Seeing as the study you just cited is clearly labeled "Retracted", it's not a valid study.

[Mavorpen]

Seeing as the study you just cited is clearly labeled "Retracted", it's not a valid study.

The CRS one? No, the CRS study was valid, it was only taken off due to Republicans whining about it, without ever actually refuting it on factually based grounds.

[Tmutarakhan]

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

That is 180 degrees from the truth. Our highest growth rates have come at times of increased income tax rates on the wealthy and on the corporations. That's just the plain fact of the matter, squirm however much you want.

[Jocabia]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf

This certainly made it to peer-review. It was later withdrawn due to political pressure along completely partisan lines because of it's inconvenient truths.

So much for your "none" claim, eh?

As for the conclusion, there was a study done by Reagan's own team that concluded that there is little evidence that the 80's recovery had anything to do with lowering taxes.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10943.pdf

So let's look at our lifetimes. Economic growth in the 80's was due to monetary policy. In the late 80's, early 90's, when economic growth had stagnated, Bush raised taxes on the rich and not long after a nearly unprecedented economic boon began. You might argue they are not linked, but you certainly cannot argue that this occurred and did not prevent the economic boon. During the boon, Clinton raised taxes. The boon continued. And then George Walker Bush became President and lowered taxes on the rich (and everyone else) and the economy collapsed.

Now, again, you might argue the link isn't there in these events, but this was the chain of events. It's a fact that America's periods of economic growth over the last 40 years does not correlate with any consistency with cutting taxes on the rich, was not attributed to taxes cuts during the times when it did correlate, not even by those who made the cuts, and most correlates with raising taxes on the rich.

In other words, the data doesn't say what you'd like it to say.

With respect to the CRS study by Hungerford that you cited:

A recent Congressional Research Service report to Congress purported to show no link between the top income tax rates and economic growth. The report, written by CRS staffer Thomas L. Hungerford, was titled "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945", CRS 7-5700, R42729, September 14, 2012. The report's methods were so seriously flawed that the study could not possibly pick up any relationship between taxes and growth, making its results, or lack of them, meaningless. The report has since been withdrawn from the CRS web site.
This type of CRS report to Congress is not available to the public on the Library of Congress web site. These reports to Congress can only be accessed on line at the CRS by Members of Congress and their staffs. Often, however, the reports are released by the Members of Congress, their staff, or CRS employees, and are picked up by other web sites. The Hungerford paper is still being cited on various websites – including the New York Times.

There are two glaring errors in the study's approach. One is that it looks at the wrong time frame, the one year change in the rate of growth or productivity versus the change in the top tax rates. That is easier than looking at multi-year averages with lags, but it is wrong. It takes one to five years for a reduction in the tax on capital income to generate all the associated additions to the stock of equipment, and between one and ten years for structures. So productivity and income rise significantly, but gradually, after a tax cut that makes investment more attractive. Looking only at the first year effect throws out about 95 percent of the outcome. It is like looking under the streetlamp for car keys that were dropped in the parking lot many yards away, because that is where the light is.

The other major error is that it does not hold other factors constant. Shifts in monetary policy, changes in other taxes, regulatory actions, even weather-related effects on the economy can have significant impacts on the measured growth rate in a given year. If the tax change in the top rates is only one of many events during the year, its effects may be hidden in the statistical noise, especially if the other events are not even in the model. Indeed, one of the few partially correct observations in the study is that the top rates affect so few taxpayers that it might be wrong to expect to find a large impact on total GDP. That is all the more reason to make sure that other variables are accounted for, to reduce the noise.-- Stephen Etin, Tax Foundation

Source: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/retracted ... till-cited

Indeed, the other study you referred to that was issued in 1989 regarding the Reagan boom finds no correlation between lower income taxes and growth. I did produce a few other outliers that matched these findings in my original post and sources.

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

It was retracted. That does not mean it failed peer review. It did not.

I cited the second to make the point that no time in our lives washer a correlation between lower upper tax rates and growth in the US. You refuted neither. At all.

[Mavorpen]

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

That is 180 degrees from the truth. Our highest growth rates have come at times of increased income tax rates on the wealthy and on the corporations. That's just the plain fact of the matter, squirm however much you want.

Tried explaining this, but he continuously states that ALL tax increases are bad, refusing to draw distinctions between middle class personal income taxes and high class personal income taxes.

[Jocabia]

That is 180 degrees from the truth. Our highest growth rates have come at times of increased income tax rates on the wealthy and on the corporations. That's just the plain fact of the matter, squirm however much you want.

Tried explaining this, but he continuously states that ALL tax increases are bad, refusing to draw distinctions between middle class personal income taxes and high class personal income taxes.

Then he keeps not properly citing the same stuff we just proved was cherrypicked.

Even Reagan's guys disagreed with his claim. Reluctantly, but disagreed none the less.

Obamacult name a time in forty years when lower taxes on the rich stimulated growth in the US.

[Free Soviets]

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

That is 180 degrees from the truth. Our highest growth rates have come at times of increased income tax rates on the wealthy and on the corporations. That's just the plain fact of the matter, squirm however much you want.

to be fair, he is being slightly trickier than that.

his studies cover other countries too. they just neglected to give a shit about explaining the variance in performance. some countries with really high taxes have consistently good growth, some do not, and the averaging process says taxes are a net negative. but when you look at the actual high and low performers, you can see patterns. high tax places with good government investing in infrastructure and human development show high returns. high tax places that waste their money do not. the fact that there are more governments wasting resources and promoting bad policies says nothing about the growth effects of taxes per se.

this should strike approximately no one as surprising.

[Obamacult]

While the statutory tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were high and growth was relatively strong, an enduring myth exists among progressives that these illusory statutory rates were responsible for a strong economy or in the very least did not undermine growth.

Besides the fact that the US had virtually zero competition due to the rest of the world digging our from the most destructive war in human history -- the effective tax rates tell a far different story.

Indeed, a further examination reveals the predicted flaws and fallacies in the lies and misinformation presented by progressives throughout the years regarding this era.

What really mattered was that the effective tax rates actually declined significantly during the period from 1953 to 1961 for the highest earning taxpayers while statutory rates remained high.

Again, this truth aligns with the data and research I have presented throughout this thread, here is a table from one of the sources ( http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/ ... 073861.pdf) :

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

For a more detailed account, see page 19 of the following research report

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__communications/documents/documents/ecm_pro_073861.pdf

The bottom line is that the rich saw a considerable drop in effective tax rates and as a result the economy grew, thereby debunking the notion that growth occurred in the 1950's despite the illusory high statutory tax rates that were all smoke and mirrors and no substance.

[Obamacult]

With respect to the CRS study by Hungerford that you cited:



Source: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/retracted ... till-cited

Indeed, the other study you referred to that was issued in 1989 regarding the Reagan boom finds no correlation between lower income taxes and growth. I did produce a few other outliers that matched these findings in my original post and sources.

Nonetheless, the preponderence of evidence suggests that lower tax rates (particularily lower corporate and personal income) do indeed lead to higher growth rates.

It was retracted. That does not mean it failed peer review. It did not.

I cited the second to make the point that no time in our lives washer a correlation between lower upper tax rates and growth in the US. You refuted neither. At all.

You have been debunked. Look above.

Think effective tax rates, as opposed to the illusory and insignificant statutory tax rates.

[Obamacult]

INdeed, it is a fallacy to believe that government is the best means to address any issue other than the self-interests of politicians and their cronies in the public and private sector.

Because the private sector can obviously be trusted to regulate the private sector, and can obviously better make sure that the poor and disenfranchised are given a good opportunity to succeed without the government. Obviously everybody who's poor and/or homeless wants to be, because they 'd go out and get jobs if they didn't.

That's what I read when I saw that sentence.

The private sector doesn't have to be trusted. If a firm doesn't satisfy consumer preferences more effectively than a competitor -- they go bankrupt.

In contrast, our federal government is a wasteful, unaccountable, corrupt, and inefficient monopoly.

Do you think it is time for some Sherman Anti-Trust action ?

[Obamacult]

What!? You mean you didn't live during the Eisenhower era? You lied!

Well I certainly lived in the Clinton/Bush ones. Clinton era, everything was booming. Bush cuts the taxes, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerhKABOOM we get a recession.

Your myth regarding Eisenhower, growth and high tax rates has been debunked.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=12463359#p12463359

In sum, the preponderence of peer reviewed research identifies and confirms this, if you would care to read it.

[Death Metal]

If a firm doesn't satisfy consumer preferences more effectively than a competitor -- they go bankrupt.

No they don't. They just steal the competitor's ideas and trick people into thinking they are different.