Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.comTax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.comTax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
January 1963
Kennedy reduced the top tax bracket and reduced taxes for the middle, working and lower classes but ALSO eliminated many of the deductions available for the wealthy and commonly used by the wealthy.
Few of the people in the 91% tax bracket in the early 1960s actually paid that high of a percentage of their income, only those who didn't know how to handle their money like Elvis Presley. There were more deductions than are imaginable today.
BTW, in 1963 the US economy was BOOMING despite a deficit (small compared to today). Kennedy was worried about a possible economic slowdown interfering with his chances at re-election in 1964 (something he never actually had to face) and wanted to keep the prosperity going so he could get a second term (unfortunately he never had a chance at a second term)
Kennedy reduced the top tax bracket and reduced taxes for the middle, working and lower classes but ALSO eliminated many of the deductions available for the wealthy and commonly used by the wealthy.
Few of the people in the 91% tax bracket in the early 1960s actually paid that high of a percentage of their income, only those who didn't know how to handle their money like Elvis Presley. There were more deductions than are imaginable today.
BTW, in 1963 the US economy was BOOMING despite a deficit (small compared to today). Kennedy was worried about a possible economic slowdown interfering with his chances at re-election in 1964 (something he never actually had to face) and wanted to keep the prosperity going so he could get a second term (unfortunately he never had a chance at a second term)
Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.comTax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,
January 1963
Kennedy was talking about tax cuts when the budget was in surplus and balanced. What the Republicans want to do right now is borrow more money we don't have to give still more tax breaks to the very rich. That is a horrible idea because it goes straight to the national debt which we have to pay back with interest.
Kennedy reduced the top tax bracket and reduced taxes for the middle, working and lower classes but ALSO eliminated many of the deductions available for the wealthy and commonly used by the wealthy.
Few of the people in the 91% tax bracket in the early 1960s actually paid that high of a percentage of their income, only those who didn't know how to handle their money like Elvis Presley. There were more deductions than are imaginable today.
BTW, in 1963 the US economy was BOOMING despite a deficit (small compared to today). Kennedy was worried about a possible economic slowdown interfering with his chances at re-election in 1964 (something he never actually had to face) and wanted to keep the prosperity going so he could get a second term (unfortunately he never had a chance at a second term)
Quite nice, Very well said.
Reducing the taxes for the top 10% is different from reducing the taxes for everyone.
In 1963 the amount invested in Vietnam was a fraction of what was invested in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time of the Bush tax cuts
Some of you are missing the point, which is in a nut shell,raising taxes on the "Rich", has the opposite effect of the lefts supposed goal, Kennedy understood that! Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?
No, we were involved in one big war in Vietnam, and the bodies kept coming back in big huge numbers. The Psyche was different from what I read.
During the Kennedy administration, activity in Vietnam was limited. It didn't turn into a full blown war until LBJ took over and reversed Kennedy's policies concerning Vietnam. In 1963, US suffered 118 deaths in Vietnam. In 1968, that number jumped to 16,592.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
