«

»

Jul
03

Do High Taxes Kill Growth?

Cenk Uygur refutes the Republican talking point that if you cut taxes you’ll spur the economy. Cenk discusses the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

pub-6343053178602209

24 comments

No ping yet

  1. Eli Jackson says:

    yeah!
    that just makes sense right? if i raise taxes and take what aint mine, put my hand in another man’s pocket it’ll HELP THE ECONOMY
    AHA!!
    AINT I SMART?
    ………
    do y’all even have a semblance of common sense or heck, even willpower to resist this senseless nonsense?
    do y’all just love? sniffin each others assholes and sayin it taste like ginger that much?
    my God….. get a clue

  2. allgoo19 says:

    “:You’re? a prime example of why mathematically- and historically-illiterate folk shouldn’t have a say in economic policy.?”
    ==
    But still no answer?
    “proof of well known historical incident tax cut helped boost the? economy?”

  3. NiceGuyCody says:

    You’re a prime example of why mathematically- and? historically-illiterate folk shouldn’t have a say in economic policy.

  4. NiceGuyCody says:

    “Most of California’s deficit is the result of? the Enron scandal? when Republicans deregulated electricity”

    Bury your head back in the sand.

  5. NiceGuyCody says:

    Pretty weak? “refutation”, but it’s not like anybody goes to TYT expecting objectivity and factuality.

  6. 8maunder8 says:

    Using the states to come up with a point of taxation vs. deficits is delusional.? Most of California’s deficit is the result of the Enron scandal when Republicans deregulated electricity. This deregulation resulted in criminal prosecutions of the Enron officials and it caused massive deficit situations for California that had absolutely nothing to do with tax policy. Don’t tell me to wake up. Your point is nonsense.

  7. trickdaddyaz03 says:

    Hey man look at states with the highest tax rates and states with lowest deficits. There are only three states with the lowest deficits that fall into the top 25 states with the highest tax rates compared to the 8 out of 10 states with the highest deficits falling into the top 25 states with highest taxes.? The system is unsustainable even more true under higher taxes. Wake UP!

  8. trickdaddyaz03 says:

    lol hey rate of growth is correct but lets look at deficits. California has one of the highest tax rates in the country and they are about to fall into the ocean with their decificit. 8 out of 10 states with the biggest deficits happen to fall in the top 25 states with the highest tax rates. So yea short term, cool we are seeing growth from taxes but long term we are driving off of a cliff and why? Every single state functions at? decifit! Fiscal cliff explained.

  9. luvcheney1 says:

    It is more instructive to see that the amount of money the govt got when the high tax rates were in effect is the same as when they are far less than half. Fact is, nobody was paying the high? tax rates.

  10. Halfdrummer says:

    @candyo7a Facts are juat a burden to your sorry ass? arent they?

  11. candyo7a says:

    You wanna stimulate the economy, fact says government needs to quit fucking with the economy. The more they fuck with it,? the less the rich invest, the more corporations cut jobs, and the trickle down (banks stop lending, unemployment goes up, etc.) begins. Small government influence, no stimulus, no bailouts. Stop printing money you can’t back, end the war, these things help the economy. Taxes are beyond a point neither here nor there.

  12. 8maunder8 says:

    Not one of the comments arguing against the fact that tax rates have no relationship to growth as is proven by all examination of the history is valid. If we can point to several periods of time in American history that demonstrate high growth during periods of the highest tax rates then the GOP? argument is obviously destroyed. However, the GOP supporters will continue to spew their nonsense because they have been indoctrinated.

  13. 8maunder8 says:

    Look at all of those tables in the late 1800s through all the way Clinton and? you can see your theory destroyed. You name one or two periods of time and I can name a dozen that contradict you and therefore your theory is invalid. If your theory were valid, then there would not be so much factual evidence against you.

  14. luvcheney1 says:

    Visit Whitehousehistoricaltables, table 1.2 (dotgovt site), and you can observe that in the `50`s, when taxes were way higher than the `90`s, over even 2000-2008, tax revenue to govt, as percent of GDP, was similar in `2000`s. Nobody was paying those high rates. Mathematically, for that? to happen, the amount of income offerred up to taxation was far lower, as percent of GDP, when tax rates are high. BTW, a factory makes more? baseball bats, than whittling does.

  15. 8maunder8 says:

    You are speaking on a micro economic scale, however if you examine American history you clearly see that taxes have absolutely no effect on national growth. If you actually look at the facts,? the times when American taxes were the highest have also been the time when national economic growth was at the highest, but hey, who cares about facts. The facts are there to see. All you have to do is look.

  16. luvcheney1 says:

    Not when it shrinks the tax base. ?

  17. luvcheney1 says:

    Without capital, a farmer would be farming, with a stick. A little capital, he has a hoe. A lot,? he has irrigated farmland, and a tractor. Which farmer is going to make surplus grain, to be sold, to gain a better standard of living?

  18. 8maunder8 says:

    Money? saved does not have a positive effect on the economy.

  19. onepiecefan74 says:

    Some economist? believe that but they ignore the fact that the money is taken out of the economy in first place where it would have been spent or saved and invested.

  20. Cyberspine says:

    …unless that tax money is being spent? on the public sector or to the private sector through contracts.

  21. luvcheney1 says:

    Article in Bloomberg ( title VERY misleading, compared to content of article), “Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody’s Says”.”By Timothy R. Homan – Sep 13, 2010″ Inside, “in 1993 — raising top tax rate to 39.6% from 31 % saving rate fell from 12.1% to 9.5%”, and “in May 2003, rich? increased saving, with rate climbing to 7.6% 2.2%” Savings vary, for all groups, but is less than folks think. I used these numbers, and then a calculator. Thanks for the compliment.

  22. luvcheney1 says:

    According to Fed Reserve statistics, saving during Clinton`s term was about 12% of the incomes of the rich, and during Bush`s? term, it was about 103% of incomes, as the rich? took on debts as well. (as did most everyone). So, “savings” are between negative 3%, and 12% max. Obama stated taxing the rich would generate $700 bill, in 10 yrs, or $70 bill a yr. Using the MAX rate of 12% X $70 bill= $8.4 bill. Tax rich, get $8.4 MORE, with $3,700 bill budget! Now, you think capital formation is bad?

  23. onepiecefan74 says:

    Dude! You have great information at your hands. where do you find these? numbers?

  24. onepiecefan74 says:

    This is the problem with these “facts”. They don’t mean anything without context. What were the regulations in those states? Were there big firms already planted in those states? How many jobs are public vs. private? Did any of these states have natural disasters in the past 10 years? How many? of these low tax’s states deficit financed? Which got more federal funds then they pay in? There’s no economic principle that would say higher tax’s create a better economic growth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>