1: You mean like... offshore tax havens costing more than $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue, which in general is reinvested into the economy when people who actually understand macroeconomics control Congress? Or the more than $2 trillion in accumulated capital and cash not being invested into anything, let alone the American economy, by the people those very 'higher taxes' would affect?
You do realize that by increasing taxes it will only further entice the rich to send their money into Tax havens correct? Or worse like we see in Britain and to a lesser extent in California and New York, send them fleeing all together.
2: The wonderful thing about citations for potentially contentious claims is that you never provide them.
Well lets look at some citations then.
Mr. Zandi says raising taxes on the rich right now–as opposed to waiting a year or two–carries risks because of the “great uncertainty” in the economy. So he proposes waiting a year or two.
“It’s unclear to me that the (tax) history of the early 1990s or any other period would be relevant,” he says. The danger, he says “Is that consumption will fall a lot more than people think based on previous experience. Given how fragile everything seems, it would be prudent not to take that chance. At least not until the recovery is on sounder ground.”
- Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics
"Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt," - Obama's own former budget director, Peter Orszag
It depends on what you are going to do with the money," Dynan said. "If the money goes back to small businesses, the unemployed, then I think it's likely to stimulate aggregate demand. If you use it to pay down the deficit ... it would be a negative" - Karen Dynan, a veteran Federal Reserve economist who's now with The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy research organization.
Now we can get into a quote pissing contest but I think you get the idea.