Nonpartisan Tax Report Suppressed by GOP

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Nov 2012, 8:29 am

New York Times/Yahoo! Finance

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.” Mr. Stewart added that people outside of Congress had also criticized the study and that officials at the research service “decided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.”

Senate Republican aides said they had protested both the tone of the report and its findings. Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted.

They also protested on economic grounds, saying that the author, Thomas L. Hungerford, was looking for a macroeconomic response to tax cuts within the first year of the policy change without sufficiently taking into account the time lag of economic policies. Further, they complained that his analysis had not taken into account other policies affecting growth, such as the Federal Reserve’s decisions on interest rates.

“There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee’s Republicans. “We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”

The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday will release unemployment figures for October, a month after some conservatives denounced its last report as politically tinged to abet President Obama’s re-election. When the bureau suggested its October report might be delayed by Hurricane Sandy, some conservatives immediately suggested politics were at play.

Republicans have also tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center ever since the research organization declared that Mitt Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates by 20 percent while protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit was mathematically impossible. For years, conservatives have pressed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to factor in robust economic growth when it is asked to calculate the cost of tax cuts to the federal budget.

Congressional aides and outside economists said they were not aware of previous efforts to discredit a study from the research service.

“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts,” said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Jared Bernstein, a former economist for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., conceded that “tax cuts for the rich” was “not exactly academic prose,” but he said the analysis did examine policy time lags and controlled for several outside factors, including monetary policy.

“This sounds to me like a complete political hit job and another example of people who don’t like the results and try to use backdoor ways to suppress them,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like this, and frankly, it makes me worried.”

Janine D’Addario, a spokeswoman for the Congressional Research Service, would not comment on internal deliberations over the decision. She confirmed that the report was no longer in official circulation.

A person with knowledge of the deliberations, who requested anonymity, said the Sept. 28 decision to withdraw the report was made against the advice of the research service’s economics division, and that Mr. Hungerford stood by its findings.

The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


The Congressional Research Service does such reports at the request of lawmakers, and the research is considered private. Although the reports are posted on the service’s Web site, they are available only to members and staff. Their public release is subject to lawmakers’ discretion.

But the Hungerford study was bound to be widely circulated. It emerged in the final months of a presidential campaign in which tax policy has been a central focus. Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, maintains that any increase in the top tax rates on income and capital gains would slow economic growth and crush the job market’s recovery.

President Obama has promised to allow cuts on the top two income tax rates to expire in January, lifting the rates from 33 and 35 percent, their level during most of George W. Bush’s presidency, to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, where they were during most of the Clinton administration. Mr. Obama maintains the increases would not hurt the economy and are the fairest way to reduce the deficit.

Mr. Hungerford, a specialist in public finance who earned his economics doctorate from the University of Michigan, has contributed at least $5,000 this election cycle to a combination of Mr. Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.


It seems that, for the right, there can be no objective truth anymore. First it was science, then it was elections, now it's nonpartisan government agencies--if it doesn't confirm Republican beliefs it's attacked, suppressed, and labeled as liberal propaganda.

This is seriously dangerous. The constant demagoguery and complete disregard for actual (if inconvenient) truth is corrosive and poisonous to democracy.

If American politicians don't find a bit of integrity and voters don't grow a few braincells, I'm afraid we really are doomed. :?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

03 Nov 2012, 10:14 am

To be part of the Right you must just believe. (Thinking is not permitted and will be appropriately punished.)



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2012, 11:20 am

To say this study is nonpartisan is rather laughable, what it is saying is quite frankly illogical.

1. Taxes eat into profits that a business makes, which can affect the number of new hires a business can make, as well as any plans to expand the business.

2. Complicated Tax forms take time away from doing business, and in effect costs a business money. That's one of the reasons why Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was so attractive to people. It simplified the tax code so that one didn't have to take nearly as much time to do their taxes.

3. Taxes actually affect how much a business charges consumers to buy their products, and having the highest corporate tax rate in the world puts our businesses at a handicap simply due to taxes.

I know people in acadamia like to believe that taxes don't affect businesses in a negative fashion, and that insane taxes won't cause businesses to either move or go out of business; but the real world is substancially different than what academics with no real world experience would like to believe.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Nov 2012, 5:08 pm

Oldout wrote:
To be part of the Right you must just believe. (Thinking is not permitted and will be appropriately punished.)


I see what you mean.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Nov 2012, 5:25 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
To say this study is nonpartisan is rather laughable, what it is saying is quite frankly illogical.

1. Taxes eat into profits that a business makes, which can affect the number of new hires a business can make, as well as any plans to expand the business.

2. Complicated Tax forms take time away from doing business, and in effect costs a business money. That's one of the reasons why Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was so attractive to people. It simplified the tax code so that one didn't have to take nearly as much time to do their taxes.

3. Taxes actually affect how much a business charges consumers to buy their products, and having the highest corporate tax rate in the world puts our businesses at a handicap simply due to taxes.

I know people in acadamia like to believe that taxes don't affect businesses in a negative fashion, and that insane taxes won't cause businesses to either move or go out of business; but the real world is substancially different than what academics with no real world experience would like to believe.


You are off topic. This thread is not about Tax Policy. It's about integrity.

Do yourself a favor and spend an hour listening to this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5oD9XokFjI[/youtube]

It's just a play by an old guy named Henrik Ibsen. I know his name sounds funny, but it won't hurt you. :P


PS
…but concerning tax policy…

I’ll give you half credit for at least making a rebuttal against the finding of the report. That’s what the GOP congressmen/senators should have done.

However, I gotta take points away, for immediately jumping to the conclusion that the report is biased.

Do you think that the only explanation for these results must be partisan bias and academic incompetence?

Do you not think it is possible for anyone to HONESTLY arrive at a conclusion different from your own?

Do you think there’s no possibility that you could ever be wrong?

Do you think there’s no possibility that you might hold a few biases yourself?

Do you think it is reasonable to assume that every piece of data that conflicts with your world view is the product of liberal propaganda? That every institution that you disagree with is corrupt or blinded by ideology? That because of this it is okay to censor and suppress the data?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2012, 9:02 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
You are off topic. This thread is not about Tax Policy. It's about integrity.


I would question whether the report you're referring to has any integrity.

GoonSquad wrote:
I’ll give you half credit for at least making a rebuttal against the finding of the report. That’s what the GOP congressmen/senators should have done.


You are aware that some GOP congressmen/senators are Economists and/or have run their own small business. Why should they waste their time writing up a rebuttal to show how this report is a bunch of bull...

GoonSquad wrote:
However, I gotta take points away, for immediately jumping to the conclusion that the report is biased.


I'm not jumping to any conclusions, it quite frankly doesn't pass the smell test.

GoonSquad wrote:
Do you think that the only explanation for these results must be partisan bias and academic incompetence?


In this case, I can think of no other explanation.

GoonSquad wrote:
Do you not think it is possible for anyone to HONESTLY arrive at a conclusion different from your own?


If they have no real world experience when it comes to small businesses then yeah I can see them coming to a different conclusion. Those that do have real world experience (not talking about Donald Trump), would probably reach the same conclusion that I am.

GoonSquad wrote:
Do you think there’s no possibility that you could ever be wrong?


I'm well aware that I'm not perfect, however in this case I know I'm correct because I actually do have some knowledge of small businesses, in fact I work for a privately owned business.

GoonSquad wrote:
Do you think there’s no possibility that you might hold a few biases yourself?


I'm well aware of the fact that I have biases like anyone else, I recognize that fact about myself and always take that factor into account.

GoonSquad wrote:
Do you think it is reasonable to assume that every piece of data that conflicts with your world view is the product of liberal propaganda? That every institution that you disagree with is corrupt or blinded by ideology? That because of this it is okay to censor and suppress the data?


I work for a small business, I've had a Professor for a Senior class that owned his own small business, and I know dang well that high taxes affected his business in a negative fashion. This is a case where I have irl experience that contradicts this "study" and I am going to go with irl experience having more value than this idiotic study.

Since I think this may be related:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_LrQowA-Y[/youtube]



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Nov 2012, 9:33 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I work for a small business, I've had a Professor for a Senior class that owned his own small business, and I know dang well that high taxes affected his business in a negative fashion. This is a case where I have irl experience that contradicts this "study" and I am going to go with irl experience having more value than this idiotic study.


Okay, maybe you missed this part of the article.
Quote:
The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


The study is based on nearly 70 years of data that came from real life.

Note, that the results concern the top tax rate, a rate which most small businesses would not be paying.

Also note the conclusion:
Quote:
“However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


As you often point out the Government spends all the money it takes in and more. The government spends that money in the American economy where it drives economic activity that benefits you, me, and that small business you work for.

When left on its own, the money at the top tends to stay at the top, increasingly invested in pure paper instruments. It does not filter through the general economy. It does not benefit the economy as a whole.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Nov 2012, 9:48 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I work for a small business, I've had a Professor for a Senior class that owned his own small business, and I know dang well that high taxes affected his business in a negative fashion. This is a case where I have irl experience that contradicts this "study" and I am going to go with irl experience having more value than this idiotic study.


Okay, maybe you missed this part of the article.
Quote:
The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


The study is based on nearly 70 years of data that came from real life.

Note, that the results concern the top tax rate, a rate which most small businesses would not be paying.


Actually I didn't miss what the report stated, however we didn't exactly the level of globalization back then, that we do now. If another country has a lower tax rate than we do, it affects a business in this country negatively when competing with a business in that country.

We had a little more lee-way on this 30 years ago compared to now.

GoonSquad wrote:
Also note the conclusion:
Quote:
“However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


As you often point out the Government spends all the money it takes in and more. The government spends that money in the American economy where it drives economic activity that benefits you, me, and that small business you work for.


Yeah Solyndra was a really sound investment wasn't it...

GoonSquad wrote:
When left on its own, the money at the top tends to stay at the top, increasingly invested in pure paper instruments. It does not filter through the general economy. It does not benefit the economy as a whole.


You do realize someone has to build those private jets, you realize that don't you. The fact that there are many rich people that stay rich has a lot to do with them being fiscally responsible.

Also the bulk of the "rich" are actually retirees that saved up money over the course of their lives, and are now trying to enjoy retirement.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

03 Nov 2012, 10:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Actually I didn't miss what the report stated, however we didn't exactly the level of globalization back then, that we do now. If another country has a lower tax rate than we do, it affects a business in this country negatively when competing with a business in that country.


Okay, then you just do not understand the difference between personal taxes and capital gains, which is what the report is concerned with, and corporate tax rates which is what you're talking about.


Inuyasha wrote:
You do realize someone has to build those private jets, you realize that don't you. The fact that there are many rich people that stay rich has a lot to do with them being fiscally responsible.

You do realize that the private jet industry cannot be the foundation of a healthy economy that needs to provide a food, shelter, and healthcare for 300 million people.
Inuyasha wrote:
Also the bulk of the "rich" are actually retirees that saved up money over the course of their lives, and are now trying to enjoy retirement.


Savings is not taxed. :lol:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Nov 2012, 12:46 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually I didn't miss what the report stated, however we didn't exactly the level of globalization back then, that we do now. If another country has a lower tax rate than we do, it affects a business in this country negatively when competing with a business in that country.


Okay, then you just do not understand the difference between personal taxes and capital gains, which is what the report is concerned with, and corporate tax rates which is what you're talking about.


Capital gains is the result of people making money after having invested their own money in a business, looks to me like you are trying to create a strawman.

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
You do realize someone has to build those private jets, you realize that don't you. The fact that there are many rich people that stay rich has a lot to do with them being fiscally responsible.

You do realize that the private jet industry cannot be the foundation of a healthy economy that needs to provide a food, shelter, and healthcare for 300 million people.


So government is supposed to provide all of these things, here's a suggestion 'Get yourself a Job!'

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Also the bulk of the "rich" are actually retirees that saved up money over the course of their lives, and are now trying to enjoy retirement.


Savings is not taxed. :lol:


Actually Savings does end up being taxed when you finally withdraw it out of the retirement savings account, sell the stocks, etc.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

04 Nov 2012, 2:02 am

Inuyasha wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually I didn't miss what the report stated, however we didn't exactly the level of globalization back then, that we do now. If another country has a lower tax rate than we do, it affects a business in this country negatively when competing with a business in that country.


Okay, then you just do not understand the difference between personal taxes and capital gains, which is what the report is concerned with, and corporate tax rates which is what you're talking about.


Capital gains is the result of people making money after having invested their own money in a business, looks to me like you are trying to create a strawman.

Now you're just talking in circles.
Your argument was that increased capital gains made American business less competitive globally. It does not. Companies are in business to sell goods and services, not stocks. Increased capital gains does not add to a firm's overhead or directly affect competitiveness.

What it MIGHT do is limit a firm's access to capital if the tax rate was too high. HOWEVER, that would only apply to the American stock market and both American and foreign companies would be EQUALLY AFFECTED.

Quote:

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
You do realize someone has to build those private jets, you realize that don't you. The fact that there are many rich people that stay rich has a lot to do with them being fiscally responsible.

You do realize that the private jet industry cannot be the foundation of a healthy economy that needs to provide a food, shelter, and healthcare for 300 million people.


So government is supposed to provide all of these things, here's a suggestion 'Get yourself a Job!'

I said economy, dingbat! :P And just where should all 300 million get their jobs? ....Ahh yes, the private jet industry. :roll:
Quote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Also the bulk of the "rich" are actually retirees that saved up money over the course of their lives, and are now trying to enjoy retirement.


Savings is not taxed. :lol:


Actually Savings does end up being taxed when you finally withdraw it out of the retirement savings account, sell the stocks, etc.

It gets taxed because it's income. It is taxed when it goes in, or when it comes out. That's only fair. And again, the typical retiree is not in the top tax bracket, so the point is moot.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

06 Nov 2012, 3:41 pm

Personal income is taxed.

Business Profits are taxed,

Investments are taxed, when and if they turn a profit.

A low tax rate promotes keeping the money.

As the personal rate goes up there is more incentive to spend, on something that is a tax deduction.

When business pays a higher rate, say 50% of Profits, that next deductable worker comes at half price.

When short term Capital rates go up, it shifts investment from Speculation, to investment in production.

In all cases a higher tax rate makes investing in longer term economic growth more desireable.

Short term thinking turns income into savings, hourding Capital, for low rates, 15%, pay it and bank the 85%, but when it is 50%, buy something, build something, which pays people to work.

It is still an advantage, when a high earner can buy the same thing I do for half off. To me, a worker is a big expense, deductable but a large part of my income. To a high earner, it is tax avoidance.

Higher rates do not harm me, because that is about profits, and I am trying to grow.

Higher rates do not harm high earners, because they can avoid the rate by spending, which preserves Capital pre tax.

What high rates do prevent is Capital being concentrated in the hands of a few very rich, where it will be used for short term speculation.

Oil, grain, real estate a few years back, where where short term investing drove up prices without increasing value, employment, other economic activity, which does pay local taxes, sales, school, when someone flips a house in two months. It drives up the taxes paid by the next buyer, who not having a pile of Capital, had to borrow, then pay a higher price. The same in oil contracts, bought up just to decrease supply, and drive up the price.

Capital is good and evil, and needs to be controlled. High taxes is what produced the Middle Class, who then could be consumers, which is 75% of the economy. Letting Investors buy and sell the jobs and companies of the Middle Class, Bain Capital, is making war on 75% of the economy, for the benefit of a small group of very wealthy.

The main economic problem of this planet, there is a $100 Trillion not invested in production, looking to make 10% a year by Speculation, logging a rainforest, starting a war, now buying Chinese Factories to fire everyone and move to Viet Nam.

It financed fishing fleets that tripled the world catch, at a time it was declining from over fishing.

Capital lacks morals or a long term plan, that is why we have governments, and taxes.

Taxes are the only method to keep Capital from causing artifical famines, gas shortages, speculating in all things people need to live, to where we are all captives of someones credit line.

Also, the biggest danger, worse than Capital, is Debt. Taxes are the only way to reduce debt. Investing in Public Debt is the final speculation, when the people are paying 5% on $20 Trillion, it is half the Public Purse going to money lenders. They produce nothing.

The only way to reverse it is taxes. Taxes being high on short term speculation, a transaction tax on stock trades, where computers trade a hundred times a minute, looking to take the profit out of the market before long term investors can buy in. A 1% tax on purchases would end this practice.

The rich have enough, what we need is more rich, more almost rich, and lots who could become rich. The way to reach that goal is taxing speculation as ordinary income, making all income subject to Social Security, and a progressive tax rate. Those who make a Trillion a year after deductions, can pay 99%. Those who make a Billion, 90%, those who make a Million, 50%, and I would take it down to school kids with no earned income, that can still come up with $10 toward their cost of upkeep.

Everyone a tax paying Citizen, everyone supporting our common venture, with the goal of being like Norway, no debt and owns 1% of the world stocks.

The best education is the best investment. We have the providers and customers, the market is unlimited.

It is not the rich, not the Fortune 500, not Wall Street and the Banks, or Congress, this country is owned by over 300,000,000 stock holders, and in a few years, they will all be dead, and replaced by another younger group, that wants a better life.

Besides taxing children, call it a Poll Tax, let ten year olds vote, because they have more interest in the long term future than anyone else.

You can do wrong a million ways, you only have to do right once.