Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...dy-s-says.html
"Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody?s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell."
"When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index."
This isn't the first study, test, history to prove that taxing the rich does not create more investments or grow the eco, at all. That isn't to say it doesn't have positives in some areas, but investments, job creation, etc is not one of them. Those take a different type incentive, ones that don't benefit the person but the corporation.
|
Do me a favor, expand your research to the last 100 years of tax rates for the top 1% and come back and tell us how the economy fared during the low times and the high times
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html
Raising the tax for the top people had no help for the economy, in fact, lowering it had a positive impact after 1963 when it got lowered from 88 to 70%
__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that