by Summary:
According to David Shultz, the data shows that high taxes don't damage the economy, but rather, improve it. So what data are the mainstream economists using to back their theories? If taxes are a major factor deterring economic growth, lines on a graph should go in opposite directions: As tax rates go up the GDP should go down. No such pattern emerges between high taxes and GDP growth over 80 years. During the Depression of the 1930s corporate and individual taxes rates increased, but in 1934 through 1937 the GDP grew by 17%, 11%, and 14% annually. Top corporate tax rates climbed to over 50% through the 1960s, again with no discernable pattern associated with decreased economic growth. The same is true with top tax rates on the richest which were 91% into the 1960s. Conversely, since the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
According to David Shultz, the data shows that high taxes don't damage the economy, but rather, improve it. So what data are the mainstream economists using to back their theories?According to David Shultz, the data shows that high taxes don't damage the economy, but rather, improve it. So what data are the mainstream economists using to back their theories? If taxes are a major factor deterring economic growth, lines on a graph should go in opposite directions: As tax rates go up the GDP should go down. No such pattern emerges between high taxes and GDP growth over 80 years. During the Depression of the 1930s corporate and individual taxes rates increased, but in 1934 through 1937 the GDP grew by 17%, 11%, and 14% annually. Top corporate tax rates climbed to over 50% through the 1960s, again with no discernable pattern associated with decreased economic growth. The same is true with top tax rates on the richest which were 91% into the 1960s. Conversely, since the
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes Coronavirus dashboard, 4 years into the pandemic: all-time low in hospitalizations, deaths likely to follow
Angry Bear writes Tesla Is Not the Next Ford. It’s the Next Con Ed
Bill Haskell writes Nestlé adds sugar to baby food in low-income countries, report finds . . .
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Nu är det dags ta farväl av reformpedagogiken
If taxes are a major factor deterring economic growth, lines on a graph should go in opposite directions: As tax rates go up the GDP should go down.
No such pattern emerges between high taxes and GDP growth over 80 years. During the Depression of the 1930s corporate and individual taxes rates increased, but in 1934 through 1937 the GDP grew by 17%, 11%, and 14% annually. Top corporate tax rates climbed to over 50% through the 1960s, again with no discernable pattern associated with decreased economic growth. The same is true with top tax rates on the richest which were 91% into the 1960s. Conversely, since the 1980s after Kemp-Roth and then after 2001 with the Bush era tax cuts, there is no evidence that the economy grew more rapidly than in eras with significantly higher tax rates on the wealthy and corporations. The same is true even of the much heralded 1960s Kennedy tax cuts. While at one time economists thought they had an almost magical impact on the economy, more recent evidence questions that.
Looking at time periods when tax rates were at their highest, GDP often grew more robustly than when taxes were cut. Visually, the attached graph simply fails to demonstrate that tax rates negatively impact economic growth.
Counterpunch.