Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times: "the right mix of tax increases, spending cuts and investment incentives will spur more start-ups, lead to more risk-taking, inspire more entrepreneurship and create more jobs."
He doesn't say what that "right mix" is, but it would make a fine follow-up column for Mr. Friedman to explain how tax increases of any mix would "spur more start-ups, lead to more risk-taking, inspire more entrepreneurship and create more jobs."
Where is the experiential evidence for that, exactly? I rarely agree with Mr. Friedman's op-ed page colleagues Nicholas Kristof and Paul Krugman, but they've been arguing that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts known as "austerity" in Europe has failed. If Mr. Friedman disagrees with them it would be illuminating to see him confront them more directly. Maybe they could do an online debate.
People sometimes say that the Clinton tax increases had the positive economic results that Mr. Friedman writes about, and the case is even sometimes made for George H.W. Bush's tax increases having had such results. I guess one could make the case that the debt and deficit situation is so bad that a small tax increase now would avert the need for larger tax increases, or inflation, which acts as a sort of tax, later. But without the additional explanation, Mr. Friedman's take on taxes is puzzling, at least to this reader.