"The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is slicedâlower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities." http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy Top Rates.pdf The report is extensive, but the reasoning behind its conclusion is fairly straightforward. The richest Americans are the least likely to spend extra money they get as a result of a tax cut, and are more likely to save it or invest it offshore. Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, meanwhile, are the most likely to spend transfer payments they receive from the government.
report: tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing to spur economic activity. Hmnnn. so if people get to keep (tax cut) their own money it doesn't spur the economy. If people spent less time worrying about OP money maybe they might find a job.
Report: Raises taxes on the wealthy does nothing to spur economic activity, create jobs, rid poverty, stop thunderstorms, save whales and polar bears, keep girls from having sex, or keep people skinny.
I did read it. Although he explains "average tax rates", which are the effective rate (i.e. 90% marginal rate, but the actual avg rate paid is 50%). All of the charts are based on "top marginal rate" and then he only examines the top .01% (1 out of 1000) and the top .001% (1 out of 10,000) tax payers, hardly a large group. Any economist that thinks lower cap gains rates don't spur growth needs to find a new career. There are lies, damned lies and statistics
If your life consists in the main of eating, shitting, and sleeping, you're done, you don't need to learn anything new.
So the more that's taken from the productive class and given to the parasite class, the better it is for the economy? What a load of crap.
Small group, yes, and the one that Romney wants to give further tax cuts. Your statement re economists is about cap gains taxes in general, which also includes people not in that small group.