Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Gauntleted Fist]

I was speaking of WWI, though the Soviet Union would've had no cause to invade the Central Powers in WWII as there would've been no WWII, at least not on the Western Front. Hitler would've never come to power, the Kaiser would've used the industry he captured after WWI (remember the cities weren't decimated and did not require so much rebuilding like in WWII. He would've used that to modernize the army to match anything the new borne Soviet Union could've come up with. He might've even tried attacking the weak Soviets to put the Tsar back into Power.

What? Germany wasn't going to win WWI even without any US intervention whatsoever. The deck was stacked against them in late '16 already. Our entry just spelled it out how clearly they had lost.

I seriously doubt that Americas allies would have lost the war even without america's intervention. However, you are downplaying how much the U.S. did help: by entering the war, even late, we likely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives by ending both WW1 and WW2 faster. If it hadn't been for the marshall plan and the debt forgiveness the US enacted after WW2, europe would likely be a much crappier place to live in, and japan would likely have been invaded by the soviets.

Yes, living under Soviet rule would have undoubtedly been much more terrible for most of Europe.

[Euronion]

Well as much as I'd like to continue debating, I really must go, got quite a bit of homework left to do.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Even cutting military spending can be extremely harmful because the first people to suffer are the civilian employees of the DoD. There are 800,000 of them. It needs to be worked out so that we actually reduce the size of our military expenditure without unduly harming the future of DoD employees. Either by giving them job referrals and retraining or moving them to sustainable roles in different departments.



Yes. This would be good.

I agree with you about not cutting the military, though I do not think we should raise taxes. Drives people and business away.

Tax cuts did not work, do you really think rich people hire people because they have money? They hire people to increase productivity. Second, if tax cuts really work US will be swimming in jobs.

[Euronion]

I was speaking of WWI, though the Soviet Union would've had no cause to invade the Central Powers in WWII as there would've been no WWII, at least not on the Western Front. Hitler would've never come to power, the Kaiser would've used the industry he captured after WWI (remember the cities weren't decimated and did not require so much rebuilding like in WWII. He would've used that to modernize the army to match anything the new borne Soviet Union could've come up with. He might've even tried attacking the weak Soviets to put the Tsar back into Power.

What? Germany wasn't going to win WWI even without any US intervention whatsoever. The deck was stacked against them in late '16 already. Our entry just spelled it out how clearly they had lost.

I seriously doubt that Americas allies would have lost the war even without america's intervention. However, you are downplaying how much the U.S. did help: by entering the war, even late, we likely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives by ending both WW1 and WW2 faster. If it hadn't been for the marshall plan and the debt forgiveness the US enacted after WW2, europe would likely be a much crappier place to live in, and japan would likely have been invaded by the soviets.

Yes, living under Soviet rule would have undoubtedly been much more terrible for most of Europe.

I really must get back to my homework, but before I go I must correct this historical error. You are incorrect. After the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk that ended the war between Germany and Russia, the German troops on the successful Eastern Front were about to hit the Western Front with greater morale and organization. Both sides were being killed and the Allies had the advantage but had those troops arrived on the Western Front and the allies did nothing, the balance would've tipped in favor of Germany.

[Twilliamson]

Even cutting military spending can be extremely harmful because the first people to suffer are the civilian employees of the DoD. There are 800,000 of them. It needs to be worked out so that we actually reduce the size of our military expenditure without unduly harming the future of DoD employees. Either by giving them job referrals and retraining or moving them to sustainable roles in different departments.



Yes. This would be good.

I agree with you about not cutting the military, though I do not think we should raise taxes. Drives people and business away.

where would the go. America would stil be a bether place to run a business then any other first world country.

[Euronion]

I agree with you about not cutting the military, though I do not think we should raise taxes. Drives people and business away.

Tax cuts did not work, do you really think rich people hire people because they have money? They hire people to increase productivity. Second, if tax cuts really work US will be swimming in jobs.

I never said we should cut taxes, just that we shouldn't raise them. Now I really must go. Good day.

[Ceannairceach]

So are you saying we should wait a few years for the US to be softened up, sell them the weapons they need for a quick buck and eventually join in if they piss us off?

Seriously though, neither Iran nor North Korea could feasibly reach the US, even if spending was at a tenth of what it is now. Few nations possess the military capability to even invade the US, and the majority of those are allied or at the very least on neutral tems.

I'm not suggesting that per se. If the Iranians get Nuclear Weapons you can be sure that they will attack Israel. The US will be forced to intervene. It is expensive to keep the Navy in the Persian Gulf. If the Saudis and the Iranians get into it, we'd be in pretty deep shit with oil prices..

Israel's own nuclear stockpile will deter Iran. The idea of Saudi Arabia siding with its enemy Iran is idiotic.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Tax cuts did not work, do you really think rich people hire people because they have money? They hire people to increase productivity. Second, if tax cuts really work US will be swimming in jobs.

I never said we should cut taxes, just that we shouldn't raise them. Now I really must go. Good day.

Good day to you too.

[Mavorpen]

It becomes fully self aware and equal mentally to a fully formed newborn?

Also, if it becomes human at 2-3 months, that means there are no legal qualms to aborting it beforehand.

Good to know you're pro-choice, welcome to the winning and moral side.

I believe that abortion past 2 months is murder, though I am thinking about adjusting that position to become at conception. I am thinking that potential to be human is as good as human.

Is your point to show that dictonaries are your enemy or something?

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

I was speaking of WWI, though the Soviet Union would've had no cause to invade the Central Powers in WWII as there would've been no WWII, at least not on the Western Front. Hitler would've never come to power, the Kaiser would've used the industry he captured after WWI (remember the cities weren't decimated and did not require so much rebuilding like in WWII. He would've used that to modernize the army to match anything the new borne Soviet Union could've come up with. He might've even tried attacking the weak Soviets to put the Tsar back into Power.

What? Germany wasn't going to win WWI even without any US intervention whatsoever. The deck was stacked against them in late '16 already. Our entry just spelled it out how clearly they had lost.

I seriously doubt that Americas allies would have lost the war even without america's intervention. However, you are downplaying how much the U.S. did help: by entering the war, even late, we likely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives by ending both WW1 and WW2 faster. If it hadn't been for the marshall plan and the debt forgiveness the US enacted after WW2, europe would likely be a much crappier place to live in, and japan would likely have been invaded by the soviets.

Yes, living under Soviet rule would have undoubtedly been much more terrible for most of Europe.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, so I will clarify my point. Because of America's intervention in both wars, they each ended faster, preventing some loss of life and infrastructure damage. Combined with the marshall plan, since less infrastructure was destroyed europe was more able to rebuild, which raised quality of life. If America had not intervened, I suspect that there would have been even more famines. As for soviet russia invading japan in ww2, stalin wasn't exactly nice to his own people, so since japan was being invaded, it likely would have been even worse for japan, especially since this would have greatly delayed japan modernizing fully like it did in real life.

[Gauntleted Fist]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, so I will clarify my point. Because of America's intervention in both wars, they each ended faster, preventing some loss of life and infrastructure damage. Combined with the marshall plan, since less infrastructure was destroyed europe was more able to rebuild, which raised quality of life. If America had not intervened, I suspect that there would have been even more famines. As for soviet russia invading japan in ww2, stalin wasn't exactly nice to his own people, so since japan was being invaded, it likely would have been even worse for japan, especially since this would have greatly delayed japan modernizing fully like it did in real life.

What I was saying was that the Soviets would have had no reason to stop at Berlin and instead could have pushed all the way into Vichy France, and then annexed everything up to there because the Red Army was in control and that's literally what they did anyway. (Annexed every state that the Red Army "retook" from the Nazis.) Leading to a significantly shittier life for pretty much everyone in Europe.

[Unilisia]

Yes. Holy freaking yes.

This but with more expletives.

[Tmutarakhan]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, so I will clarify my point. Because of America's intervention in both wars, they each ended faster, preventing some loss of life and infrastructure damage. Combined with the marshall plan, since less infrastructure was destroyed europe was more able to rebuild, which raised quality of life. If America had not intervened, I suspect that there would have been even more famines. As for soviet russia invading japan in ww2, stalin wasn't exactly nice to his own people, so since japan was being invaded, it likely would have been even worse for japan, especially since this would have greatly delayed japan modernizing fully like it did in real life.

What I was saying was that the Soviets would have had no reason to stop at Berlin and instead could have pushed all the way into Vichy France, and then annexed everything up to there because the Red Army was in control and that's literally what they did anyway. (Annexed every state that the Red Army "retook" from the Nazis.) Leading to a significantly shittier life for pretty much everyone in Europe.

But your premise is no American intervention, which I would assume would mean no American equipment supplied to the Soviets, and therefore a much less devastating Red Army which might not even have kicked the Germans all the way back to Berlin.

[Grenartia]

What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Most of us knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

Same here. Admittedly, though, I was in 1st grade, but still.

You reference Homosexuals getting married. 1. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes and 2. it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution in the United States because you want it to. 3. In this respect they are protecting the rights of the religious against the intrusion of the state into religious matters. 4. That is why republicans like myself advocate civil unions, if the state wants to give homosexuals equal treatment then they can give them civil unions that would have the same legal status as a marriage.

1. No, its fucking not.
2. By the same token, no one religious group owns the concept of marriage, and they have no control over the legal aspects of it (government does).
3. Protecting the rights of the religious from WHAT?
4. You say civil unions, but all we hear is 'seperate but equal'.

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion. The state has no right to say what is marriage and what is not marriage. That is a decision for religious institutions not the state. The state DOES had the power to say what is legal and what is not (Civil Union).
2. No, but you are saying to religious institutions "You don't like homosexuals getting married to each other? TOO FUCKING BAD! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! GOVERNMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING! YOU HAVE NO SAY! GO FUCK YOURSELF!" you can see how that is not a very appealing message.
3. Care to elaborate?

1. No, its not. My religion says nothing about it. Also, the state gives certain rights and privileges to married couples. Therefore, it gets to define what a married couple is.

2. No he's not. Nobody is saying that.

[Tmutarakhan]

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion. The state has no right to say what is marriage and what is not marriage. That is a decision for religious institutions not the state.

That is totally OPPOSITE to the truth. The word "marriage" is a LEGAL term, and I am sick and tired of religious people trying to hijack it. My parents, like many at the time, got married before a justice of the peace with no involvement of any church whatsoever; outside the southern states, church weddings were something that only a minority of people did (that was for rich folks to show off). It is only in the last couple decades that the goddamned Christians have had the freaking nerve to question the validity of other people's marriages.

The state DOES had the power to say what is legal and what is not (Civil Union).

What is legal is called "MARRIAGE". It is from a Latin word that has scarcely changed its pronunciation in two thousand years (maritus in the days of Cicero), and has referred to the LEGAL institution ever since the Roman Republic, before Christianity even existed. The pagan religion had its own word for their religious ceremony, matrimonium, and that is what the Christians also called their religious ceremony when they felt the need for separate words to distinguish the religious and legal institutions.

2. No, but you are saying to religious institutions "You don't like homosexuals getting married to each other? TOO FUCKING BAD!

Goddamned right! How the fuck do you DARE to interfere with the private lives of people who DO NOT BELONG TO YOUR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS? Where do you get the nerve to claim to dictate to everybody else?

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!

I sure as hell don't give a shit what violates YOUR religious beliefs-- why should I? Do you know how deeply your shit is repugnant to MY beliefs? Do you care?

GOVERNMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING!

As far as the law is concerned, YOU BET!

YOU HAVE NO SAY!

It's called the First Amendment. Your fucking church has no say whatsoever in how the laws treat people, which should be EQUALLY.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!" you can see how that is not a very appealing message.

You don't like the constitution of the United States? Then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

[Ashmoria]

What you mean "we", kemo sabe? Most of us knew it was bullshit from the get-go.

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

ya but how old were you then? I was well over40 and recognize bs when I was being fed it.

[Ashmoria]

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

And the lie was that they had weapons of mass destruction. The lie was not that they were in league with al-Qaeda.

it seems that you have forgotten your lies.

there were so many.

[Gauntleted Fist]

But your premise is no American intervention,

No American troops. If you go back to my first post, you see where I talk about America joining the war relatively late. (In actual fighting. We were quite willing to sell shit to either side in WWI and in WWII we thought Hitler was pretty awesome until the early '40s.)

which I would assume would mean no American equipment supplied to the Soviets, and therefore a much less devastating Red Army which might not even have kicked the Germans all the way back to Berlin.

No.

[Wamitoria]

in WWII we thought Hitler was pretty awesome until the early '40s

Roosevelt saw Hitler as a threat to peace for a very long time. Most of America's leaders at that time did.

Whether or not the fringes of American politics or the isolationists did is a whole other issue.

[Terran Empire]

I dont want to live on this planet anymore.... fucking people.

[Wamitoria]

Most Americans believed the lies, though. I know I did at the time.

ya but how old were you then? I was well over40 and recognize bs when I was being fed it.

I was 10. But still, my parents believed them, and they weren't even all that conservative.

I think they just didn't think anyone would have the audacity to lie about something like that.

[Obamacult]

Yeah we should just become a one party state like China or North Korea. I heard they're doing pretty well.

When your country is almost single-handedly the reason poverty in the world has been reducing at amazing levels then yeah I guess pretty damn well. (China.)

That's not to give them a free pass by any means, but at least they don't have politicians out to actively fucking kill large portions of their population via starvation.

That's bullshit.

China reduced poverty precisely because it lessened the power of the central government by offering the citizenry some small measure of capitalism.

Indeed, when a tiny injection of capitalism is inserted into brutal and dysfunctional command economies -- magnificent results ensue.

In sum, if the communist party had not loosened its control on the markets a quarter century ago and allowed some modest free market reforms to take place -- millions would still be living on the razor edge of starvation.

[Wamitoria]

When your country is almost single-handedly the reason poverty in the world has been reducing at amazing levels then yeah I guess pretty damn well. (China.)

That's not to give them a free pass by any means, but at least they don't have politicians out to actively fucking kill large portions of their population via starvation.

That's bullshit.

China reduced poverty precisely because it lessened the power of the central government by offering the citizenry some small measure of capitalism.

Well, sort of. It's pretty much impossible to have your business expand beyond small mom-and-pop markets without joining the CPC.

Indeed, when a tiny injection of capitalism is inserted into brutal and dysfunctional command economies -- magnificent results ensue.

Agreed. GF isn't arguing for the adoption of a command economy.

In sum, if the communist party had not loosened its control on the markets a quarter century ago and allowed some modest free market reforms to take place -- millions would still be living on the razor edge of starvation.

Agreed. GF isn't arguing for the adoption of a command economy.

[Obamacult]

I agree with you about not cutting the military, though I do not think we should raise taxes. Drives people and business away.

Tax cuts did not work, do you really think rich people hire people because they have money? They hire people to increase productivity. Second, if tax cuts really work US will be swimming in jobs.

It appears the overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed research supports the claim that that higher taxes reduce growth.

Hence, can it be logically concluded that lower taxes increase growth?

I think that depends on the economic conditions when taxes are reduced. For example, if the economy is rife with onerous regulations and subsidies and credits to politically connected enterprises and industries -- then no. Tax cuts must be combined with a more simplified tax regime and a regulatory system that doesn't favor politically connected actors over economically productive ones.

Empirical Studies on the Effects of Taxes on Economic Growth (Reference, Method/Data, Effects, Summary of Findings)

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.

[Ceannairceach]

Tax cuts did not work, do you really think rich people hire people because they have money? They hire people to increase productivity. Second, if tax cuts really work US will be swimming in jobs.

It appears the overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed research supports the claim that that higher taxes reduce growth.

Hence, can it be logically concluded that lower taxes increase growth?

I think that depends on the economic conditions when taxes are reduced. For example, if the economy is rife with onerous regulations and subsidies and credits to politically connected enterprises and industries -- then no. Tax cuts must be combined with a more simplified tax regime and a regulatory system that doesn't favor politically connected actors over economically productive ones.

I suppose that you're just ignoring, in your campaign for smaller government, that increasing government spending is also a method by which you increase economic growth?