1. Deceptive Economic Analysis from London School of Economics
The analysis referred to in this article, based on a paper by David Hope, practices gross deception in the service of promoting Biden's misinformed and misguided tax-and-spend plans.
cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-c…
The analysis referred to in this article, based on a paper by David Hope, practices gross deception in the service of promoting Biden's misinformed and misguided tax-and-spend plans.
cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-c…
2. Allow me to debunk it by pointing out key deceptive tactics deployed and by referring to a more accurate analysis of historical data.
Two key deceptive tricks used are:
(a) time frame chosen (starting at 1965 instead of 1930)(b) Measures used (not GDP, but per capita GDP)
Two key deceptive tricks used are:
(a) time frame chosen (starting at 1965 instead of 1930)(b) Measures used (not GDP, but per capita GDP)
3. The article says, "Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't."
4. First of all they only looked at the data starting at 1965, because if they had started at say 1930, the whole conclusion would have been blown out of the water. In these days of supercomputers, it is very easy to torture data till it confesses to any preconceived crime.
5. Second, even with this sleight of hand they found that GDP went up significantly after marginal tax rates were reduced, but so did the population in the mean time. So they came up with "per capita GDP" to show that it didn't go up.
6. An economy that absorbs millions upon millions of new entrants at the bottom economic rungs and brings them all up the economic ladder to the high "per capita GDP" that preexisted is doing exceptionally great. It is not stagnant.
7. Secondly, what about unemployment rate not changing after 5 years from when the marginal tax rates were reduced. Every economist worth their salt knows that unemployment rate is a cyclical measure. It goes up and down throughout history, along with business cycles.
8. Just to illustrate the point, it is mathematically impossible for the unemployment rate to improve forever. What would that even mean? In the best possible world, the unemployment rate would plateau at a low level. What else could it possibly do?
9. Here is a thread I wrote two years ago to give the lie to the pathetic musings of the fallen Nobel Laureate house economist of the New York Times. It demonstrates how liberal economists sell their souls to produce propaganda for Democratic politicians.
https://twitter.com/bansisharma/status/1082666833029799937?s=20
12. Beyond a certain point, raising marginal tax rate not only does not produce any extra revenue for the government, but it actually reduces the government revenue as the rich always figure out creative ways to shelter incomes. And politicians always collude to enable.
The End
The End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
