Economics A tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. - Page 3

Direckshun · 11-09-2012, 12:32 PM

According to the CBO.

Right as Congress and the White House get down to negotiating over the fiscal cliff.

In the image below, you can see that of all the things you could extend to avoid the fiscal cliff, extending defense spending gets the biggest bang for your GDP buck.

By far the least bang? You guessed it:

The Bush tax cuts. Especially for the wealthy.

Cutting them out, as a result, is probably the easiest means by which you can get a leg up on this massive deficit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A71D020121109

Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO
By David Lawder and Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON | Thu Nov 8, 2012 9:03pm EST

(Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday, stepping into a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over how to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff."

The report by the authoritative non-partisan arm of Congress is expected to fuel President Barack Obama's demand for higher taxes on the rich, part of his proposal to avoid the full impact of the expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending reductions set to begin in early 2013 unless Congress acts.

Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy, particularly to small businesses, and to U.S. employment rates.

They have held firm to their position that none of the cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire.

The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner.

Obama has also stuck to his position, with the White House reiterating on Thursday that the president sees his election victory on Tuesday as an endorsement by voters of his view on higher taxes for the affluent.

"One of the messages that was sent by the American people throughout this campaign is ... (they) clearly chose the president's view of making sure that the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more in the context of reducing our deficit in a balanced way," senior White House adviser David Plouffe said.

UNCERTAINTY SCARING MARKETS

The disagreement over the tax cuts is a major roadblock to any agreement in Congress, as it is coupled with the spending issues also on the table.

The lack of progress in ending the standoff is spooking global markets, which fell again Thursday in part because of political uncertainty in Washington.

The concern was underscored by the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, which said on Thursday it sees an increasing chance that the U.S. economy will go over the cliff next year. But it also said it expects policymakers will probably compromise in time to avoid that outcome.

Analysts at the agency see about a 15 percent chance that political brinkmanship will push the world's largest economy over the fiscal cliff.

With only five days remaining before the U.S. Congress begins its post-election session, top political leaders in Washington provided little new assurance Thursday that they can act in time.

In an interview with ABC Television's Diane Sawyer, Boehner repeated what he has been saying for two years: "Raising tax rates is unacceptable. ... Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate," he said, according to a transcript provided by the network.

The Democratic White House did not respond publicly to an initiative launched on Wednesday by Boehner to get talks going to avoid the cliff. The president is scheduled to make a statement on the economy Friday.

In the absence of concrete developments, the CBO report became the focus of argument Thursday. Reports by the CBO are designed to assist Congress in making difficult fiscal decisions, but they are also used by partisans to bolster their own arguments.

A statement from the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee said the CBO report "confirms that raising taxes on all taxpayers will result in fewer ‘help wanted' signs hanging in the windows of businesses across the country. Job creators agree, and have made it clear, that raising taxes will result in a weaker economy and fewer jobs for the millions of Americans struggling to find work."

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the report "underscores the need to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff from harming American families and businesses, and to instead enact a balanced, long-term deficit reduction plan."

The term "balanced" plan is the Democratic code for tax increases.

The tax cuts were enacted during the Bush administration, but were made temporary, in part to reduce the appearance of exploding the already soaring U.S. deficit over the long term.

They were extended in 2010 for two years under an agreement between Republicans and Obama, after Republicans swept the mid-term elections that year and took control of the House.

That extension is running out, just as the trigger date arrives for automatic spending cuts Congress approved in 2011 as part of a deal to avoid a default on U.S. government debt.

VARIOUS SCENARIOS

The report from CBO laid out the economic effects of a number of options that lawmakers will consider as they deal with the fiscal cliff events.

The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent.

Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent.

Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said.

But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years.

"CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said.

Trivers · 11-09-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

If we are going to willingly walk into a deeper recession then it needs to be across the board tax increases.

Rep!

Donger · 11-09-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'm not accepting your numbers as facts.

You don't believe the CBO?

How much revenue does Obama/Democrats claim that letting the reduction expire on "the rich" will generate? Surely you'd agree with that number, right?

**BigRedChief** · 11-09-2012, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainiac

It would be nice if the Libs would at least call this what it really is, and stop with the misleading rhetoric.

12 years ago the tax rates were reduced for everyone. Those rates have been in place for 12 years. That is the status quo. I'd say it's the new normal, but it's over 12 years old, so it is just the normal.

The Republicans aren't asking for tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats are demanding tax increases on the rich. At least call it what it really is.

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Donger · 11-09-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, wasn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go **** yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one ****ed up person.

vailpass · 11-09-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Once again big guy, we did not elect a king. obama will have to kneel and give plenty to Boehner and the boys in exchange if the tax increases are to happen.
Don't worry though, kneeling is one of the few things obama has proven he can handle.

blaise · 11-09-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.

blaise · 11-09-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

The time for debate is over? Huh? Are you drunk?

vailpass · 11-09-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.

They have dropped their facade, true colors are showing.
They are in for many rude awakenings.

**BigRedChief** · 11-09-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go **** yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one ****ed up person.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.

blaise · 11-09-2012, 03:26 PM

BRC has decreed. Let there be no more discussion on Obama's policies. It has been written, so let it be done.

blaise · 11-09-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.

You're operating under some insane assumption that because Obama was elected people have to just blindly accept everything he plans to do.

It's just really strange shit, man.

Radar Chief · 11-09-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

**BigRedChief** · 11-09-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.

thats not what I'm saying at all. Nothing even close to that. You get to believe and think what ever you want.

Donger · 11-09-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.

I'm getting that from your posts above, James. I'm well-aware that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and his policies. You seem to be saying that the slightly less than half who didn't should just shut, not debate and go along with Obama, just because he won.

Is that not right? If it isn't right, please feel free to elaborate. In between checking out dead-drops, that is.

**BigRedChief** · 11-09-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

You're operating under some insane assumption that because Obama was elected people have to just blindly accept everything he plans to do.

It's just really strange shit, man.

That is not my point at all. No one has to just accept everything. No one has to blindly fall in line. Where the **** are you guys getting this idea? What did I say that you have lost the freedom of thought and expression?

11-09-2012, 12:32 PM
Direckshun Black for Palestine Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $1167782	A tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. According to the CBO. Right as Congress and the White House get down to negotiating over the fiscal cliff. In the image below, you can see that of all the things you could extend to avoid the fiscal cliff, extending defense spending gets the biggest bang for your GDP buck. By far the least bang? You guessed it: The Bush tax cuts. Especially for the wealthy. Cutting them out, as a result, is probably the easiest means by which you can get a leg up on this massive deficit. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A71D020121109 Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO By David Lawder and Kim Dixon WASHINGTON \| Thu Nov 8, 2012 9:03pm EST (Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday, stepping into a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over how to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff." The report by the authoritative non-partisan arm of Congress is expected to fuel President Barack Obama's demand for higher taxes on the rich, part of his proposal to avoid the full impact of the expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending reductions set to begin in early 2013 unless Congress acts. Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy, particularly to small businesses, and to U.S. employment rates. They have held firm to their position that none of the cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire. The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner. Obama has also stuck to his position, with the White House reiterating on Thursday that the president sees his election victory on Tuesday as an endorsement by voters of his view on higher taxes for the affluent. "One of the messages that was sent by the American people throughout this campaign is ... (they) clearly chose the president's view of making sure that the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more in the context of reducing our deficit in a balanced way," senior White House adviser David Plouffe said. UNCERTAINTY SCARING MARKETS The disagreement over the tax cuts is a major roadblock to any agreement in Congress, as it is coupled with the spending issues also on the table. The lack of progress in ending the standoff is spooking global markets, which fell again Thursday in part because of political uncertainty in Washington. The concern was underscored by the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, which said on Thursday it sees an increasing chance that the U.S. economy will go over the cliff next year. But it also said it expects policymakers will probably compromise in time to avoid that outcome. Analysts at the agency see about a 15 percent chance that political brinkmanship will push the world's largest economy over the fiscal cliff. With only five days remaining before the U.S. Congress begins its post-election session, top political leaders in Washington provided little new assurance Thursday that they can act in time. In an interview with ABC Television's Diane Sawyer, Boehner repeated what he has been saying for two years: "Raising tax rates is unacceptable. ... Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate," he said, according to a transcript provided by the network. The Democratic White House did not respond publicly to an initiative launched on Wednesday by Boehner to get talks going to avoid the cliff. The president is scheduled to make a statement on the economy Friday. In the absence of concrete developments, the CBO report became the focus of argument Thursday. Reports by the CBO are designed to assist Congress in making difficult fiscal decisions, but they are also used by partisans to bolster their own arguments. A statement from the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee said the CBO report "confirms that raising taxes on all taxpayers will result in fewer ‘help wanted' signs hanging in the windows of businesses across the country. Job creators agree, and have made it clear, that raising taxes will result in a weaker economy and fewer jobs for the millions of Americans struggling to find work." Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the report "underscores the need to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff from harming American families and businesses, and to instead enact a balanced, long-term deficit reduction plan." The term "balanced" plan is the Democratic code for tax increases. The tax cuts were enacted during the Bush administration, but were made temporary, in part to reduce the appearance of exploding the already soaring U.S. deficit over the long term. They were extended in 2010 for two years under an agreement between Republicans and Obama, after Republicans swept the mid-term elections that year and took control of the House. That extension is running out, just as the trigger date arrives for automatic spending cuts Congress approved in 2011 as part of a deal to avoid a default on U.S. government debt. VARIOUS SCENARIOS The report from CBO laid out the economic effects of a number of options that lawmakers will consider as they deal with the fiscal cliff events. The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points. If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent. Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent. Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said. But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years. "CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said.
Posts: 37,650

11-09-2012, 03:26 PM	#40
blaise MVP Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Plano, TX Casino cash: $1145	BRC has decreed. Let there be no more discussion on Obama's policies. It has been written, so let it be done.
Posts: 16,951

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode