"This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking."
Some money quotes of particular interest in this election:
- "Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. Fiscal consolidations based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to succeed at reducing deficits and debt and less likely to create recessions." -Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010)
- "Taxes directed towards public investments first add then subtract from GDP." - N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007).
- "Tax-financed spending reduces growth in developed countries, increases growth in developing countries." - Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997).
Sure you can quibble that Tim Hudak's Million Job plan won't create a million jobs, but you cannot honestly state that the main thrusts of lower taxes, lower spending, reduced corporate and home expenses, and reduced regulation won't have a positive impact on the economy. Almost every study agrees that it will.
The Liberals, the NDP, and their union and media lapdogs are simply economic deniers putting their children, and their children's children at financial risk so they can continue down "me me me only about me" path.
h / t to Jack Minz's article in the Financial Post on May 29th. I had to fix his link to get it work.
5 comments:
Anon@12:51,
Nice, so glad you could have a civil debate. I provide a researched article with links, and excerpts from peer reviewed studies. You respond with naming calling.
Where is Hudak talking of raising spending? I am pretty sure he is saying the exact opposite. That is why all the unions and special interest groups have attack ads against him.
Paul Martin, Liberal hero made significant cuts to taxes in 2001.
Name-calling is the last resort of the intellectual bankrupt. Couldn't even get the facts about Hudak right.
What a bunch of precious snowflakes. Harper is a fiscal failure. But no, that is not your concern. Harper's greatest strength is that he is not a liberal. you bozos are killing our country with debt. Harper is the poorest financial manager in this nation's history.
Anon@11:08 also resorts to name calling. Sigh. Maybe I am getting too old, I just want a respectful debate.
Harper managed to balance the budget, years before the Ontario Liberals did. Or Quebec Liberals. Or Albertan PCs etc
Not sure you can say he is the worst.
We're arguing past eachother, here.
Beyond the unnecessary name calling, let's look at the claims here
a) tax breaks encourage job growth (which they do)
b) tax breaks increase the burden on future generations (which they do)
These two are no brainers and both supported by your data. Tax breaks create jobs by pushing the burden of paying on current government expenditures on future generations. That's what they do.
Harper has increased the total debt over his time in government. Any tax cuts that he's managed to actually pull off have also created jobs. The question of whether they created more jobs than they got rid of (in the government sector) may or may not be supported by your 23 papers, I haven't gotten into them yet. However from the perspective of someone who isn't selfish, it doesn't really matter: it also increases the burden on people who cannot defend themselves, people who have no representation in the question of whether or not they are paying for our current excesses. One need only look at Greece to see why pushing ever more debts onto future generations is a bad idea: there is no stopping point, there is no point where the conservatives suddenly agree that it's OK to stop breaking the government's budget: it is a slippery slope, yes, but there are real dangers at the bottom. We would prefer not to be on the slope at all, regardless of whether or not in the short term, new jobs can be created by doing so.
Post a Comment