Peer-reviewed Academic Studies: More Taxes, Less Prosperity

Via International Liberty:  Studies indicate that higher taxes lead to less economic growth.  As Dan Mitchell puts it, the Tax Foundation

reviews the academic research on taxes and growth and doesn’t find a single study supporting the notion that higher tax rates are good for prosperity.

. . .

Twenty-three studies found a negative relationship between taxes and growth, by contrast, while three studies didn’t find any relationship.

For those keeping score at home, that’s a score of 0-23-3 . . . .

All the Numbers You Always Wanted on Government Spending (But Were Afraid to Ask)

(Come for the pretty graphs; stay for the mounting sense of terror!)

I thought it would be useful to have all these data together in one place for easy reference, illustrated with easy-to-understand graphs, with links to solid sources.  I’ve even added a convenient hyperlinked table of contents:

• Government Keeps Growing

• Forced Redistribution Is Now the Main Thing the Federal Government Does

• “Fair Share”

• Federal Government Borrows More than a Third of Every Dollar It Spends

• “But I Heard Obama Has Been Really Responsible!”

Repeal the Federal Deduction for State Taxes

National Review’s editors explain a creative potential solution to the “fiscal cliff” impasse:  Eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes.  Currently people can deduct, on their federal income taxes, the money they pay in state and local taxes; in effect, this forces taxpayers in small-government states to subsidize the big-government schemes of other states.  National Review:

Rich Pay Even More Disproportionate Share of Income Taxes than Previously Reported

Via Wintery Knight, Professor Mark J. Perry gives us another graph of how skewed our tax system is against the rich (contrary to a certain liberal narrative):

Rich Already Pay More than “Fair Share”

Via Hot Air and the Washington Times, a new report from the government’s own Congressional Budget Office shows that (as of 2008 and 2009) the top 20% of the population earn 50.8% of the income in the country, but pay 67.9% of the taxes.

Acting Against Interest

I was reading a piece by a certain liberal columnist recently, and it struck me that the author, and other liberals I’ve heard, have two very different ways of thinking about voters’ acting against their (presumed, by liberalism) self-interest:

• If they’re poor or middle-class, and they support lower taxes and less spending on “entitlement” programs (i.e., they want to seize less of the property of the wealthy for themselves), it’s treated as some kind of bizarre anomaly that cries out for explanation (possibly involving staggering stupidity), even a moral failing (e.g., by Paul Krugman or blog commenter Snoodickle).

Tax Revenues 15-20% of GDP, Regardless of Tax Increases or Cuts

Far-flung Fancies is talking about something I had never heard of until recently: “Hauser’s Law”.

As Mr. Hauser explains,

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). . . .

Thumbs Up Rob Portman, Thumbs Down Sherrod Brown

Just a quick report on my (Ohio’s) two senators, from my communications with them yesterday about the debt-ceiling fight:

I called Senator Portman’s office and immediately reached a real person.  The staffer seemed unprepared to discuss policy details apart from particular proposals, but as to the particular proposals currently on the table, he assured me that Senator Portman would support Senator Lee’s version of “Cut, Cap, and Balance”, and that he would not support the “Gang of Six” proposal (more on that here). 

Can We?

[picapp align=”right” wrap=”true” link=”term=franklin&iid=214246″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/214246/hundred-dollar-bill/hundred-dollar-bill.jpg?size=500&imageId=214246″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

The story of America in the twentieth century was the story of the growth of government.  It has accelerated and decelerated, and even retreated at times, but taken together, it looks almost inexorable—it grows and grows, slowly choking out freedom and economic activity. 

Salt in the Wound

Polls only mean so much.  How representative is the sample?  Even to the extent that a given opinion, as worded, is genuinely held by a certain fraction of the population, what exactly does that mean, and how deep does it go?  How transient is it?  Etc.

So, as with any poll, however carefully scientifically controlled, however carefully conducted, take these data with a grain of salt.

That said, I was interested to hear this week that President Obama is the “Most Polarizing President Ever”.