Hillary, Wrong Again as Usual
In the Wall Street Journal this morning, Steve Forbes publishes a column that is brief, cheerful (as is his wont), and devastating (also his wont). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he notes, remarked not long ago that "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what--it's growing like crazy." To which Forbes replies, part:
Take a look at Brazil's income tax rates--they are lower than ours. The highest rate is a mere 27.5 percent, far below our top federal rate of 35 percent....Moreover that exaction [in the American tax code] will climb to almost 43 percent come January.
Isn't Brazil's success an example of what Ronald Reagan and other tax cutters have always claimed: Lower rates generate more economic activity...?
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Hillary, Wrong Again as Usual
Peter: So what is it? The Big Lie (made on the theory that no one would check) or abysmal staff support. Looks like the two choices are: Willful dishonesty or incompetence.
May '10
Re: Hillary, Wrong Again as Usual
By Occam's Razor, I'd have to choose 'The Big Lie'. I can't imagine that no one knows the facts. But the facts are clearly in opposition to the narrative and the agenda.
May '10
Re: Hillary, Wrong Again as Usual
Well, except that's not what she said. "Tax to GDP rate" is not "tax rate"
Our tax to GDP rate is around 28%. Brazil's is around 39%. So is that really a lie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
May '10
Re: Hillary, Wrong Again as Usual
I think the point is that Secretary Clinton champions this:
higher tax rates > higher tax revenues > higher government spending
... and not this:
lower tax rates > higher economic activity > higher tax revenues > lower deficits
Her comment about Brazil seemed to support the former, while a careful reading of it (as you point out, lysdexic) would suggest the latter.