[quote=SK in CV]No, and here’s why. The proposed changes (and the changes I’ve been discussing) are related to taxpayers with income over $250K a year. As we’ve discussed, this is a pretty decent income, and it allows for a nice, if not extravagant lifestyle. The further under that income level, the more likely most, if not all income will be spent and not saved. [/quote]Not true. As you’ve stated, you had plenty of saving while making well under $250k. I’m also making well under $250k and I have no problem saving.
[quote=SK in CV]As far as evidence for some of the things I’ve said, see the link below. The guys who write there are both academics and working economists. Some of it is pretty wonky, but they do some serious data crunching, with regression analyses (something I haven’t done for decades), that support their conclusions. Most of all, I like their stuff because they almost always show their work, and readily accept criticism.
http://www.angrybearblog.com/search?q=higher+tax+rates%5B/quote%5D
With the chart in this blog, it doesn’t really agree with the statement that increase top marginal tax rate and you have a stimulative effect. Unless I’m reading the chart wrong. 37.5-42.4% have higher GDP growth than 42.5-62.4%. The only ones that are higher is 62.5%-67.4% and 77.5%-92.4%. But like you said, causation vs correlation. Could it be that the GDP was growing for other reason and the top marginal tax rate doesn’t really affect GDP? I’m simply disputing the point that higher top marginal is stimulative. I’m sure, if you did this exact same study for over tax brackets, you probably see similar result. Would that mean that higher taxes on the lower tax brackets would be stimulative? So, let me go back to what I said before. You can’t look at one variable in a massive equation in isolation and say, look, variable A was x% and GDP grew, so if we change A to x%, we’ll have growth. That’s a folly argument since you’re ignoring the many other variables that attributes to the GDP growth.
