Rich are an unreliable source of tax money

[4dsc]

This idea is picking up steam well beyond the Democratic caucus. Even Warren Buffett wants higher rates on the wealthy. In this push, however, tax activists are ignoring an inconvenient truth: a tax system heavily dependent on the wealthy is highly volatile and a breeding ground for bitter budget battles.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120126/OPINION01/301260021/1024/MARKETPLACE03/?odyssey=nav|head

Can anyone know if the numbers the authors uses here are correct?

[virtualobserver]

1. not likely that truth would come from Brendan Miniter, Senior Editorial Director......

at the George W Bush Institute.

[rfranklin]

2. There is a simple fact he misses...most of our growth in GDP came during higher tax rates...

Chart: Since 1950, Lower Tax Rates Have Coincided with Weaker Economic Growth

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/

[geckosfeet]

3. WTF - cut tax rates on the rich and corpos then act surprised when tax revenue drops?

What is this? The twilight zone?

[dkf]

4. Why isn't this simple logic when you take into account they mostly get their income from investments

That means taxes are dependent on interest which the Fed has told us will be minimal for the next few years or gains on stocks, which over the last decade haven't returned much.

It's depressing to me that the whole of the solution seems to be taxes both for Republicans and Democrats. Is that really the end all and be all?

[PETRUS]

5. The columnist is flailing.

Investment income does vary from year to year but that's no argument against progressive taxation (besides, smart budgeting and planning could account for this with surpluses in windfall years offsetting leaner years), and wouldn't factor in much at all when it comes to other taxes we should consider such as a financial transactions tax and a wealth tax.

Also, as I've argued on this board many times, much of inequality is a result of policies that affect the distribution of income before taxes. Efforts to reduce inequality should begin there. Inequality is a real problem with real consequences - it damages the overall economy, and is strongly correlated with higher rates of violent crime, poor outcomes in health and education, and decreased socioeconomic mobility.

[bluedigger]

6. It doesn't really matter if his numbers are correct.

He's just cherry picking data that has nothing to do with tax policy. Choosing downturns is a one sided view and does not illustrate the effects of volatility.

[bemildred]

7. What does this person think we have now? "a breeding ground for bitter budget battles".

You can't threaten people with the status quo to defend the staus quo. Even with good numbers his argument is a crock.