Oh wait....lets review your original claim:
You DID claim Canada used "it" (lowered top marginal PERSONAL income rates), and then you compound the errors in your argument by showing that Canadian fed revenue has been increasing at the exact same rate as US.
LMFAO... I love how you presume to know what "it" means... and obviously "it" means something from the first paragraph, not the more recent line that "reducing taxes created growth"...
No... there's absolutely no way "it" could have meant the general strategy of reducing taxes... "it" obviously has to apply to only the top tier marginal rate in a progressive income tax strategy... God, you're such a clown the way you take existing information and turn it into a bunch of paper flowers... Especially considering I have been arguing to keep existing income tax rates where they are, and reduce corporate and capital gains taxes on this thread for nearly a year now... To suggest I am only concerned with dropping the top marginal rate is ridiculous... (I seriously hope you’re aware that the top bracket of the marginal progressive rate was not the only tax cut that JFK created… He dropped capital gains taxes as well)
Then, you’re so foolish to not even notice how the Canadian's dropping corporate tax rates and it creating growth that has allowed their revenue to continue to grow as well, which hasn't hurt their revenue, as furthering my point... that tax cuts don't cost revenue, and spending cuts are what is necessary...
So please explain, how when the Canadian's cut corporate tax rates by a significant margin, yet their tax revenue grew at the same rate as a nation that has exceedingly high tax rates somehow would indicate that we need to have high tax rates in order to gain revenue? It doesn't... It actually shows us that focusing on tax increases is still a bad approach...
Except that they did not when it comes to personal income rates....which was your original argument....but you decide to shift your goalpost to fit your changing argument.
LMFAO... this same old claim when you’ve been disproven, by claiming I am "moving the goalposts" which you think are already set in the wrong spot...
See, when you misinterpret, misquote, misconstrue what I say to mean something other than what I did, it's not me moving goalposts, it's you not even having a clue what game we are playing...
If you want to stick the goalpost analogy, it’s me putting goalposts down, you not seeing them, then claiming you scored when you were way out of bounds... so I made the goalposts bigger, and brighter so you can't miss em... Then you accuse me of cheating… thinking I only did it after you missed…
Clearly the “it” followed “by reducing taxes” part… Also, I never said Reagan dropped the top marginal bracket alone either… as he also dropped capital gains taxes… the strategy was targeted tax reductions to increase investment… if you don’t get that, maybe you should re-learn the use of pronouns.
"indicative"? FFS, your failure is bad enough, now you can't use proper English?
Now, you are trying to give me grammar lessons… that’s hilarious…
Coughindicativeisawordcough…
Indicative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
“in•dic•a•tive adjective \in-ˈdi-kə-tiv\
1: of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of verb forms that represents the denoted act or state as an objective fact <the indicative mood>
2: serving to indicate <actions indicative of fear>
— in•dic•a•tive•ly - adverb “
BTW… it’s a fairly common term. It’s not like I’m pulling punches with infrequently used vocabulary. How on earth you were thrown by that is beyond me. Chalk it up to holiday stress?
The personal tax rates during Ike's terms had nothing to do with the recessions that caused the higher levels of UE in the first place, you are still operating on correlation without causation.
No, you are assuming causation… or an argument based on causation… No one is saying the tax rate caused stagnation, decline, etc. No one is saying low tax rates equates to low unemployment. Like everything unemployment is cyclical.
What’s said is rate changes have a temporal effect on investment and spending (not governmental but private sector consumer and corporate spending), which encourages commerce and creates a fluidity to the market and creates a period of growth.
JFK/Johnson used tax cuts to re-invigorate the post-war economic boom, while the US was still in a dominant position globally. Reagan didn’t have such a dominate position in the world, as Japan and Germany began to flourish, and the Soviets gained ground globally in the 1970s, however, tax cuts under Reagan were instrumental in getting the economy stimulated again, while monetary policy was being adjusted to control inflation. Later in his administration capital gains tax raises preceded a massive dip in the market.
I will also add that Clinton also benefited from tax cuts. Though he raised personal income tax rates, he worked with Republicans in Congress to get capital gains taxes lowered, and approved tax numerous new tax-deferred investment options like the 529s, Roth IRA’s etc. which reached out to new classes of investors in the newly forming upper middle class and e-traders. As a result, in the mid 90s investment grew massively driving the spur of growth which was the famed ‘Clinton Economy’. However, it too came to an end in the early 2000s recession, which is why we had the creation of the Bush Tax Cuts, which spurred a recovery period during the Bush Administration.
The UE level is not an indicator of what tax rates were, it’s an indicator of how well we were growing, that there were ample jobs around to sustain even a booming population… as that was the period the post-war baby boomers were entering the workforce. In many ways it’s a better indicator than nominal GDP, which includes a lot of over-speculative prices and is effected by inflation. Nominal GDP, % of GDP, and other things also can become skewed depending on the level of growth, etc.
Under JFK/Johnson, the economy grew from targeted tax cuts, and fiscally responsible spending. While JFK/Johnson added new social programs and increased defense spending, they did so with new revenue, and were still able to pay the WWII debt down. Proof that it can be done.
It still appalls me to this day that Democrats have abandoned their old platform, that was immensely successful.
This is the voodoo argument exposed, if you are trying to directly link tax rates to unemployment (which you were), then it should be consistent....but guess what, it is not. And as the Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy showed (and confirmed by other studies) the neocon voodoo myth of tax rates CAUSING "economic growth" is a total falsehood.
Hmm… really?
Cuz that chart seems to indicate that capital gains top rate tax cuts seems to have an effect on increased federal revenue, whereby an increase in revenue occurs as the result of a decrease in capital gains and a decrease in revenue occurs following an increase in capital gains taxes.
That federal revenue reflects increased economic activity in the private sector. So if we drop capital gains taxes we could experience growth in the economy and in turn growth in federal revenue…
So why would Obama want to raise capital gains taxes on everyone, and raise it even higher on the top bracket?
Also, this site shows fairly well how dropping corporate tax rates increases personal disposable income, which has an effect of increased GDP and decreased unemployment…
Corporate America To The Rescue?*|*| Defunct Economist
See… you’re mistaking the fact that people of one mindset release studies including only the information they want people to think as proof…. When they either are unaware or simply chose not to include others… There’s a whole other school of thought based on sound evidence, which has been proven successful on numerous occasions.
