- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 71
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Cont'd
In fact, of all advanced nations, the US has the least progressive tax structure and the greatest wealth disparity. We are also among the worst in terms of social mobility.
15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America
Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA
Another example of the amnesia that comes with Reagan nostalgia is how long it took him to curb the unemployment rate, and how much quicker Obama's policies have taken hold.
Now for the rest of the story, BLS.gov is the keeper of job creation and growth. Seems that the charts show job growth meager at best with unemployment rising and the number of employed dropping as well. Seems that the majority in this country are now waking up to that reality. Obama ratings are in the low 40's for a reason. The American people don't see that job growth as evidenced by over 3 million more unemployed since the stimulus plan passed. Just think, we spent over a trillion dollars to generate these results. ....
Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth
There seems to be some debate regarding the effect of tax increases/reductions and the revenue they yield. We have several examples to pull from here. The data shows that tax increases on the top income quintiles (from current rates) actually results in increased revenues.
As you can see, any arguable positive effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are dwarfed by the effects of Clinton's tax increases. And the "increases" under Reagan and Bush were merely recoveries that yielded revenue below the 1965-2005 average. On the other hand, the Clinton's revenue increase happened at a level above this average. In other words, the economy actually grew after Clinton's tax increases.
At the very least, the data shows the error in supply side economics. Reagan's tax cuts wasn't followed by an increase in the economy's productive capacity beyond the average business cycle. Clinton's tax increase didn't result in economic despair supply siders would like to argue.
There seems to be some confusions as to the who and whens of these tax increases (and the effects of the Contract with America), so let's be clear. The top earners did not receive a tax cut after the GOP takeover. Also, it should be noted that under Reagan, the bottom quintile experienced a tax increase.
What the data shows is that tax increases on the top income earners largely taxes money that would otherwise be stored away under the proverbial mattress. On the other hand, the middle and lower earners tend to spend their entire paycheck, which means this money goes back directly into GDP.
Another effect of the regressive effects of the tax structure is the wealth disparity that has followed. As taxes on the top margins have been reduced, more of the wealth has coalesced here (this is Reaganism's contribution to America)
Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth
There seems to be some debate regarding the effect of tax increases/reductions and the revenue they yield. We have several examples to pull from here. The data shows that tax increases on the top income quintiles (from current rates) actually results in increased revenues.
As you can see, any arguable positive effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are dwarfed by the effects of Clinton's tax increases. And the "increases" under Reagan and Bush were merely recoveries that yielded revenue below the 1965-2005 average. On the other hand, the Clinton's revenue increase happened at a level above this average. In other words, the economy actually grew after Clinton's tax increases.
At the very least, the data shows the error in supply side economics. Reagan's tax cuts wasn't followed by an increase in the economy's productive capacity beyond the average business cycle. Clinton's tax increase didn't result in economic despair supply siders would like to argue.
There seems to be some confusions as to the who and whens of these tax increases (and the effects of the Contract with America), so let's be clear. The top earners did not receive a tax cut after the GOP takeover. Also, it should be noted that under Reagan, the bottom quintile experienced a tax increase.
What the data shows is that tax increases on the top income earners largely taxes money that would otherwise be stored away under the proverbial mattress. On the other hand, the middle and lower earners tend to spend their entire paycheck, which means this money goes back directly into GDP.
Another effect of the regressive effects of the tax structure is the wealth disparity that has followed. As taxes on the top margins have been reduced, more of the wealth has coalesced here (this is Reaganism's contribution to America)
Would you please explain to me why there is such passion and a concerted effort on the part of liberals to reduce take home pay for all American taxpayers? Why are liberals working so hard to keep the taxpayer from becoming less dependent on the govt? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know?
Well, at this point in Reagan's presidency, his approval ratings were worse, and unemployment was still spiraling towards 10%
Would you please explain to me why there is such passion and a concerted effort on the part of liberals to reduce take home pay for all American taxpayers? Why are liberals working so hard to keep the taxpayer from becoming less dependent on the govt? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know?
I care more about what the data shows and enjoy refuting prevailing myths. I don't know or care what conservatives assume 'liberals are trying to do' so much as I care about the actual effects of policy. And if the data shows anything, is that from our current tax levels, revenue would increase if taxes on the top earners were raised (or rather, if the Bush taxes are allowed to expire). It has nothing to do with "wanting" to do anything to anyone.
It seems to me that your POV stems more from a sentiment. The wild-wild west 'leave me alone' mentality and this dictates your economic point of view.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, they were worse but changed dramatically after the Tax cuts started benefiting the economy. How many states did he win in 1984. Unemployment actually went over 10% but it was Reagan pro growth policy that got those numbers under control and led to the biggest landslide re-election in modern history.
Not sure why you have a problem with people keeping more of their own money and it is obvious to me that you don't have a clue as to what Reaganomics is. What is your agenda here? Why the full court press on taking more money from the taxpayer?
Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
When the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire what does that do to the take home pay of the American taxpayer? What affect will less take home pay have on the American consumer?
No, posting anything from Krugmen destroys your case. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute Krugman who knows that liberals will never verify the rhetoric. Why do you want to reduce take home pay for taxpayers? Have you followed what is going on in NY when Patterson raised the taxes on the rich? What affect did that have on govt. revenue?
Sorry I should be more clear. They should be allowed to expire on the top quintiles. This can be used to help pay down the deficit, which will potentially stave off any currency crisis the dollar could face, thereby preserving the buying power of the American consumer.
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts?
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts? Look to NY State as an example. What liberals have a problem understanding is human behavior. There are options for the rich to paying higher taxes but that fact never crosses a liberal's mind.[/QUOTE]
Notice how you are now ignoring all the data I've posted and are now focusing on spin and rhetoric?
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, posting anything from Krugman destroys your case. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute Krugman who knows that liberals will never verify the rhetoric. Why do you want to reduce take home pay for taxpayers? Have you followed what is going on in NY when Patterson raised the taxes on the rich? What affect did that have on govt. revenue?
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts? Look to NY State as an example. What liberals have a problem understanding is human behavior. There are options for the rich to paying higher taxes but that fact never crosses a liberal's mind.[/QUOTE]
Notice how you are now ignoring all the data I've posted and are now focusing on spin and rhetoric?
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look, you don't want to answer the question, don't blame you. How many businesses moved out of New York to keep from paying higher taxes? Is it human behavior to spend more money when their taxes go up? All I see from you are diversions from the tough question because you know the answer and just cannot admit it.
People have a choice and it is human behavior that liberals ignore. How many projections has Obama made that have come true? Show me a chart on BLS that shows jobs saved? Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected? Show me any chart on bea.gov that shows what the economy would be today had we not passed the stimulus plan? You buy rhetoric and ignore substance as well as human behavior.
The keeper of the economic data is bea.gov, the keeper of employment/unemployment data is bls, the keeper of the checkbook of the U.S. is the Treasury Dept. None show what Krugman is claiming and like all liberals it is about taxing the rich. Well, the rich are people and their behavior changes when they have more money taken from them. They have the options the workers do not have, they can leave and will.
I ignore nothing and that is why I posted actual data from the non partisan sites. You can claim that Cato is partisan just like I can claim that Krugman is partisan but what you cannot claim is that bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data is partisan. Liberals claim that tax cuts cause deficits yet the numbers show govt. revenue going up AFTER tax rate cuts. You claim it was due to coming out of a recession yet you ignore why we came out of that recession. You deny what all liberals deny, human behavior that happens when people keep more of what they earn.
Actually, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury will show the same graphs I posted in my initial post, which you ignored and hid for cover behind a CATO article (this is like getting paleontology from a creation science website). CATO is not an unbiased source for informaiton. Their entire mission is to find ways to argue for limited govt. Just like creationist organizations exist to 'refute' evolution, not provide unbiased information on paleontology or geology.
Cato Institute: Sponsors Program
Support the Cato Institute's mission of advancing liberty
Sponsorship is one way you can defend, in a concrete way, America's heritage of individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Cato depends solely on tax-deductible contributions from Sponsors who share our commitment to a free and prosperous society. When you support the Cato Institute, you are not just a contributor, you are a colleague. You'll have access to the latest Cato publications, reports, newsletters, and invitations to Cato events. You aren't merely supporting our mission, you become a part of Cato.
Please click here to become a Cato Sponsor today.
Your contribution helps support...
The Cato Institute stands in defense of the traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Cato's scholars emphasize the due influence the Declaration of Independence and Constitution should have in the public policy debate and the importance of preserving the basic liberties that are the foundation of a free society.
For more than a quarter century, the Cato Institute has been the most effective voice in Washington, D.C., advocating a smaller, less intrusive federal government. From media appearances, policy studies, and book publishing to Capitol Hill visits, conferences, and outreach to college students, the Cato Institute is America's leading voice for individual liberty and limited government.
The Cato Institute provides the only consistent voice for individual liberty and limited government in the Washington policy arena. Thanks to Cato's work, journalists and policymakers understand that the ideals that animated the American Revolution are alive today, and that substantial numbers of Americans believe in those principles. Since 1977, Cato scholars have been influential in a range of policy debates, including
Social Security reform
The point is which you continue to ignore is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn and the reality that tax revenue increased AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts and in fact doubled. How can that happen and how can tax cuts that double revenue cause deficits?
Look, you don't want to answer the question, don't blame you. How many businesses moved out of New York to keep from paying higher taxes? Is it human behavior to spend more money when their taxes go up? All I see from you are diversions from the tough question because you know the answer and just cannot admit it.
People have a choice and it is human behavior that liberals ignore. How many projections has Obama made that have come true? Show me a chart on BLS that shows jobs saved? Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected? Show me any chart on bea.gov that shows what the economy would be today had we not passed the stimulus plan? You buy rhetoric and ignore substance as well as human behavior.
The keeper of the economic data is bea.gov, the keeper of employment/unemployment data is bls, the keeper of the checkbook of the U.S. is the Treasury Dept. None show what Krugman is claiming and like all liberals it is about taxing the rich. Well, the rich are people and their behavior changes when they have more money taken from them. They have the options the workers do not have, they can leave and will.
I ignore nothing and that is why I posted actual data from the non partisan sites. You can claim that Cato is partisan just like I can claim that Krugman is partisan but what you cannot claim is that bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data is partisan. Liberals claim that tax cuts cause deficits yet the numbers show govt. revenue going up AFTER tax rate cuts. You claim it was due to coming out of a recession yet you ignore why we came out of that recession. You deny what all liberals deny, human behavior that happens when people keep more of what they earn.
" Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected?"
GDP report: Best growth in six years - Jan. 29, 2010
The point is which you continue to ignore is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn and the reality that tax revenue increased AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts and in fact doubled. How can that happen and how can tax cuts that double revenue cause deficits?
" Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected?"
GDP report: Best growth in six years - Jan. 29, 2010
I cannot believe you are so naive and gullible buying what you are told. I do apologize for the mistake, according to BEA we did have a 5% growth in the fourth qtr of 2009 but a little research shows why, cash for clunkers and first time home buyer credits. all led to the current results, revision downward after spending trillions. Kind of like having a sale and then after the sale not having anyone show up. I really suggest you learn the components of GDP and find out where the growth occurred.
GDP Growth percentage
I 2009 -4.9
II 2009 -.7
III 2009 1.6
IV 2009 5.0
I 2010 3.7
II 2010 2.4
The projection was that Obama would have 4% economic growth yearly for the next two years. That isn't going to happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?