The chart is a bit bothersome...anybody wanna tackle it?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/
1) They are using GDP.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Care to go any further with that? Haha I know they are, but a good response requires more than simply pointing that out, don't you think?
Correlation /= causation
And your alternate explanation?
/thread
GDP = C (consumption) + I (investment) + G (government spending) +Nx (net exports)
This means that, in order to increase total gross domestic product, one of the variables must rise while either (a) holding the other variables constant, (b) increasing the value of other variables, or (c) not allowing the other variables to fall by a wider margin than the gain in the targeted variable. Government can increase GDP by increasing its spending while simultaneously engaging in reckless monetary expansion which, guess what, increases all other variables in the equation (consumption, investment, and even exports).
If the government did not simultaneously engage in inflationism, then the increase in government expenditure (G) would be greatly outweighed by the reduction in private consumption and investment (the crowding-out effect). But GDP is an inherently flawed measure for another reason, primarily because it does not distinguish between investment, on the one hand, and malinvestment on the other.
In other words, government spending + inflationism = higher GDP (in almost all situations), but this does not constitute sustainable or even real economic growth (it's also why nations like China, and the former Soviet Union had very high GDP figures while their populations live(d) in misery).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Sam29, I don't think Daniel Muffinberg, or anyone else participating in this thread, is expecting to actually convince anyone at ThinkProgress. In fact, I find it doubtful that ThinkProgress is even concerned with factual accuracy. What they're concerned with is "truthiness" - does the notion that higher taxes = more growth seem true to enough people? The people running ThinkProgress hope it does, so that taxes can be raised and subsequently spent on their pet projects.
But anyways, the reason why using GDP is flawed is because of the broken-window fallacy. 'Nuff said. :P
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
1. Peter Schiff points out that when the tax rate was 90%, nobody paid 90%, because there were so many loopholes.
But those loopholes have since been closed.
He adds that a rich person truly taxed at 90% would most likely just retire, ending whatever he was contributing to the economy.
2. The thing about statistics, there has to be a reason they make sense. otherwise you are obviously missing a piece of the puzzle. What sense does it make that higher taxes means more growth?
Let us pretend that in Mexico there is some area where the drug lords have gotten rid of the govt, and extort money from the inhabitants. Would the people be better off if the drug lords extorted 90%, or if they extorted less?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
high taxes=growth of government.
The higher taxes are the bigger government will grow. The economy will not be positively influenced by higher taxes. The higher taxes are the less disposable income people have. This effects the private sector negatively, well the private sector that does not see any government money.
Let's ask a simple question, How do higher taxes encourage business?
Suppose it's true... why not raise taxes to 100%? Heck, why stop at the top marginal rates? Why not tax the middle class at 95%, and the poor at 90%? After all, if increasing top rates creates growth, then why shouldn't the government just take it all, and why only the top marginal rates?
Schiff is right, btw, when the top rates were higher, there were more loopholes, so the top earners didn't ever pay the top rate.