Republicans Try to Hide Study That Shows Tax Cuts for the Rich Spur Inequality

[signalmankenneth]

November 2, 2012 |

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report in September that showed that cutting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans did not spur economic or job growth, refuting a key Republican justification for the party’s continued obsession with maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy they passed in 2003. But when Senate Republicans aired seemingly minor complaints about it, the agency quietly withdrew the report [2], even as its economic team advised it to stand firm.

The report, as ThinkProgress reported in September, found that tax cuts for the richspurred income inequality [3], not economic growth. “There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth,” the report stated. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

The withdrawal came after Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) aired minor quibbles about language the report used that he viewed as “politically freighted [4],” the New York Times reports:

Senate Republican aides said they protested both the tone of the report and its findings. Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted.

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee also aired methodological questions about the study, a spokesperson told the New York Times. But a Times source inside the CRS said that the report was pulled even as its top economic team, including the study’s author, stood by its finding [4]. Outside economists, like Vice President Biden’s former adviser Jared Bernstein, said the study was methodologically sound and that the GOP attack on it “sounds to me like a complete political hit job.”

Despite Republican efforts to block the findings of the CRS study, others have shown similar results [5]. Even Republicans have admitted [6] in the past that the Bush tax cuts didn’t spur the job and economic growth the party promised, and if nonpartisan studies aren’t enough, history makes the same case. Since Republicans began instituting supply-side policies under President Reagan, growth has lagged [7] andincome inequality has surged [8] as the wealthiest Americans make more money whilepaying less in taxes [9].

By Travis Waldron

[canceled.2021.1]

Then why did OWEbama cut taxes?

[/MSG/]

Can you point to the power of government to regulate income equity?

[Althea]

Then why did OWEbama cut taxes?

to extend unemployment for republicans out of work, and to repeal DADT.

A bad deal, in my opinion.

[Mott the Hoople]

Can you point to the power of government to regulate income equity?

Yea it's called taxation. Research your history of the Great Depression. This is nothing new. My sentiment about this report is "Well thank you for telling us the obvious".

Historically tax rates at the high end of income brackets have been very high for two reasons. #1. It prevents inequality of wealth from occurring. That is, it prevents too much money being accumulated by two few hands and thus concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a few. It's well known that this is not good for the economy because it takes money out of circulation where money does its thing and brings me to the next point. #2. It keeps money in circulation. Anyone who thinks high tax rates for the very weathy is redistributionish socialism are morons drinking the kool aid. The whole idea behind those high tax rates is the principle of "use it or lose it.". Currency cannot do its thing and make a nations economy flourish if it's hoarded by a handful of people. So the principle behind these high tax rates for the very highest income earners is to force them to put this money into circulation or failing that, pay a large part of it in taxes. This is why it is not redistributionist. The person has a choice. They can use that money by investing it, which puts that money into circulation, keeps the economy running, potentially earns them more profits, maintians prosperity and prevents them from losing it to taxation.

My point about all of this is that this is not big secret. It's standard Keynesian economics and it's been known for a very long time now. This is why income taxation needs to be progressive. It's fair, it prevents to much money being accumulated into too few hands and it keeps money in circulation. You want to make the economy grow? You want to create jobs? You don't do that by cutting taxes. That only happens when consumers are buying things. A person who owns a restaraunt doesn't buy a second grill cause he gets a lower tax rate. He/she buys one cause they have more customers and need the extra equipment to meet demand. The same for the manager of a construction company. They don't buy a new bulldozer cause their taxes have been lowered. They buy a new bulldozer because he has more customers who need his service. How is that demand created? By increases consumer purchasing that is premitted by keeping money in circulation. Lowering taxes will not create jobs. Only increased demand will do that and demand is created by purchasing by consumers. That's what creates jobs!

[canceled.2021.1]

to extend unemployment for republicans out of work, and to repeal DADT.

A bad deal, in my opinion.

So OWEfuckhead ranked the economy for the queers and you don't think it was a good trade off?

You homophobe