A tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth.

[Direckshun]

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.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

Because you wrote shit like this:

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

Please explain to me why anyone should read that and think that you AREN'T saying that you think the GOP should just and do what Obama wants without any opposition or debate.

I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

Oh, I've never been under the impression that Obama isn't an arrogant prick. He's actually said those same words before. If he thinks that just because he won the election that all dissent and disagreement must be over, he's wrong.

And so are you.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by Xanathol

Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

Here's some history, too. Over three decades of Trickle Down Class Warfare have yielded the exact opposite results that it's proponents continue to promise it will produce. How long should the middle class and the working class continue to buy into this scam? Where are the jobs these tax cuts were supposed to produce?

There is a direct correlation between Trickle Down and the continued concentration of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer. That disparity is no coincidence.

The antidote to that illness is not more poison. We've had over thirty years of doing the same thing with horrilbe results. Republicans are nuts to think that the American people should keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

The proof is in the pudding.

[Chief Henry]

obama says his will plan will cut 4 $trillion from the 16+ Trillion deficit.




The CBO states that his plan will kill 200,000 jobs and the major accounting firm and business consulting experts "Ernst @ Young" said his plan would kill 700,000 jobs.

How I long for the days of 4.60% unemployment........RECORD 52 months of private job growth and a robust economy of 3.50 % GDP. We had all of that on January 3rd of 2007. But then Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over the House and Senate.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're looking at it the wrong way.

We've essentially got to the point we're at now, fiscally, because we've given immense tax relief to the wealthy (as well as everybody else, but the wealthy reap the biggest benefits) and we have a ton of federal spending that a shit ton of jobs rely on, such as teachers and the military complex.

The "Grand Bargain," should we actually achieve one, is going to cut down jobs in one way or another, because it's going to eat into these realities.

So the goal is to cut down the deficit in ways that will harm the GDP the least, and unemployment the least. That's what the CBO is recommending.

And, well... 200,000 jobs by making sure the wealthy get far less tax relief than they've been enjoying, either by repealing Bush's tax cuts or by cutting down on deductions hardcore, is very do-able when you consider all other options. We added 171,000 jobs to the economy in October alone.

The CBO doesn't recommend. They do analysis based on the assumptions they're instructed to use.

Remember when the CBO said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit? And then later, using different assumptions, they said that it increased the deficit? Good times.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We eroded that over the past decade.

At the turn of the century, the dot-com bubble was bursting sending our economy into recession. The foundation for the disastrous housing bubble had been laid. And al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into an international threat capable of killing 3000 people on our own soil. Those were the good ol' days.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by penchief

Here's some history, too. Over three decades of Trickle Down Class Warfare have yielded the exact opposite results that it's proponents continue to promise it will produce. How long should the middle class and the working class continue to buy into this scam? Where are the jobs these tax cuts were supposed to produce?

There is a direct correlation between Trickle Down and the continued concentration of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer. That disparity is no coincidence.

The antidote to that illness is not more poison. We've had over thirty years of doing the same thing with horrilbe results. Republicans are nuts to think that the American people should keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

The proof is in the pudding.

When you allow the tax cuts to expire, you'll see the current jobs that are dependent on that crazy right wing policy. Fortunately for the country, we've already benefitted for a decade from them and I don't think we'll have to give the full benefit back.

[Taco John]

We already achieved a grand bargain. Only they're calling it a "fiscal cliff." Democrats get higher taxes. Republicans get cuts across the board.

Walk away.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

The election decided the President. The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Taco John

We already achieved a grand bargain. Only they're calling it a "fiscal cliff." Democrats get higher taxes. Republicans get cuts across the board.

Walk away.

I would have to agree with this.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by blaise

The election decided the President. The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.

Absolutely. You have a right to disagree. However, it turns out, you are in the minority.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Absolutely. You have a right to disagree. However, it turns out, you are in the minority.

That's not what I was talking about, but I guess thanks for typing words.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Xanathol

Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

It's true that Clinton pushed the measure that eventually caused the bubble that cratered the market. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a reply to what I'm talking about, but whatever.

It should be noted that the bubble expanded for eight years under W's watch, however, who did nothing to reduce it or even slow it down.

Take the Obama administration, for instance, which has recognized that student loans is the next potential bursting bubble, so took measures to reduce the risk of that by making them more manageable.

Originally Posted by Xanathol

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

All more or less true.

The CBO, however, has concluded that the fallout from adopting the Clinton tax rates for the highest bracket would cause very little economic damage.

200,000 jobs can be made up for in the span of a couple months in our current recovery.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by blaise

The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.

And who said it did.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The CBO doesn't recommend. They do analysis based on the assumptions they're instructed to use.

If you want to dispute their results, be my guest.