- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
For me, the question is alittle different.
We've been told that tax cuts spur economic growth. FFG has pointed to an article that essentially states that during the Bush-43 presidency economic growth increased (on avg.) 2.3% - a rather modest increase given the amount of money that went back into the pockets of million+ wage earners, money that we've been told these wage earners would use to reinvest in their businesses to greatly improve the economy. And yet, we ended up with a deep recession.
My question has always been if tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest wage earners were to spur economic growth, why then didn't unemployment ever fall below 4% since 2001? I read a report a few weeks ago that illustrated that between 2001-2008 unemployment fluxuated between 4-6.5%. Granted, that's alittle above what I think most economist say we should shot for (3-5%), but still, why didn't unemployment remain low if tax cuts were suppose to spur economic growth?
argue against a flat tax. we who pay most of the taxes tire of dems buying votes by calling for our taxes-and our taxes alone to go up and up and up when we get no additional benefits for paying more and more and more