Glenn Hubbard Quotes

The data does not support that high-income tax cuts are the main drivers of growth, so I don't think that uncertainty over what the tax rate will be for someone that makes a million dollars a year has that big an impact on the economic growth rate in the country.

Everyone wants the rich to pay more in taxes.

The real reason to oppose increasing tax rates on the wealthy is that it's a good bet they could do more to help the economy if they keep their money rather than have their earnings confiscated by the government and spent on another round of stimulus.

There are a few things that we can do. One of them is that we can increase the taxes that people are paying who are the extremely wealthy in our communities. So, 70 percent, 80 percent, we've had it as high as 90 percent.

American businesses and upper incomes pay a larger portion of the federal taxes of our national taxes than any country in the world.

When President Obama speaks about raising taxes on the rich, he speaks about high-income employees and small business owners, not entrepreneurs who build big businesses.

The income tax is flawed for a number of reasons - it discourages economic growth and encourages a bloated government.

Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts.

Why don't we go all the way and simple take the rich off the tax rolls altogether?

Those who claim the economy will collapse if tax rates on the wealthy increase, do not know their history. In the Eisenhower Administration—and Eisenhower was hardly a left winger—the marginal tax rate was 91 percent. I am only suggesting that it go to 50 percent.

If we want to jack up the tax rates on the really rich, the amounts of money that would bring in are trivial compared to jacking up rates on the middle class.

There are real impacts from lowering tax rates, encouraging savings.

Democrats single out glaring examples of tax preferences or spending priorities that favor the wealthy and Republicans cry 'class warfare!'

I have continuously said that, at the very minimum, the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000 should be extended.

The rich pay more in total taxes now than ever before - ever. It's true. Just like it's true that when the rich are convinced they're going to be taxed more, they spend less. And when the top few percenters don't spend, there goes all your spending, because they account for half of all retail spending.

If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.

I just think that - when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that - that - when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it.

The centerpiece of Obamanomics - raising taxes on high earners and investors and lowering them on the middle class - is attacked by free-marketers for penalizing economic success and possibly further stalling economic growth.

High tax rates distort economic decision making, and our corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the world.

I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.

One way to have broader access to wealth is to reduce the tax on the large group and increase the tax on the very top so concentration of wealth doesn't get to extreme levels.

I think, in effect, in most of the European countries, the total marginal tax rate is over 50 percent; that's to say, add on other taxes like VAT to the income tax.

When a liberal says they are going to soak the rich, the middle class will get drenched.

We demand a graduated income tax.

I did a little study of my office, and the average worker pays a higher tax rate than I do. If the government needs money, it should get if from me rather than my secretary of the person who will serve my lunch today.