U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,361 posts, read 8,072,041 times
Reputation: 4596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Sorry, but no. It is a fact, the tax cuts generated increased revenue to the Treasury, bringing the deficit down.
"Fact"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:26 PM
 
9,951 posts, read 7,504,781 times
Reputation: 2486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK View Post
Trickle down is propaganda.
It sure doesn't seem like propaganda when people get laid off because those at the top are losing money. When do you think the now-unemployed were hired? When the business was making more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:39 PM
 
3,130 posts, read 3,073,229 times
Reputation: 1534
Trickle down has NEVER worked. Can't believe people still believe that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:40 PM
 
28,766 posts, read 9,426,823 times
Reputation: 3076
In fact, the opposite is true. Remember Christina Romer? She used to be Obama's economic advisor. Her research found that tax increases hurt the economy.
Quote:
What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, “… are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”
Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama’s top economic advisers.
Romer’s Research: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Be Highly Contractionary | The Beacon (http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=6958 - broken link)

Romer's research:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/pap...ERJune2010.pdf (broken link)

As "the rich" pay a large percentage of the federal income tax revenue, the effect of not extending the tax cuts at that level would exacerbate the highly contractionary effect.

Romer knows the truth. She subsequently resigned her post as Obama's economic advisor, and is no longer with the Obama admin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:42 PM
 
10,963 posts, read 4,331,295 times
Reputation: 3087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117 View Post
Kennedy proposed the first tax cuts since the 20s. They passed in 1964. Between 1964 and 1969 13.8 million jobs were created, with modest expansion in GDP. Taxes were increased in 1969 and the economy entered recession.

In 1976 and a second time in 1978, taxes were once again cut. The result? Another 12 million jobs through 1980.

Reagan 's tax cut took effect in 1983 and a second cut was enacted in 1986. His first cuts were similar in magnitude to Kennedy's. We experienced 7 years of above average GDP growth between 1983 and 1990, including the creation of 21 million jobs.

Next, H.W. Bush raises taxes in 1990. The economy once again tumbles into recession.

Clinton's massive tax hike took effect in 1994 and is the only case in US history where raising taxes did not lead to recession (although we did nearly fall into recession in early 1995).

There was an additional tax cut in 1997, followed by a measurable increase in job creation and economic growth.

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, creating 10 million jobs through the end of 2007.


History clearly shows that tax cuts cause large scale economic expansion and growth.

The whole concept that tax cuts for the rich will somehow stimulate the economy is the biggest con job foisted on the American people in the last 30 years. Tax cuts are "sugar highs" they do not promote long term economic growth.

The three main drivers of economic growth are:

Significant increases in population.

The growth middle income wage earners

Scientific and technical innovation with create new markets and new products.

What happens when one or more of these phenomena occur?

Investment!

Here is a comparison of Real Private Fixed Investments from the Bush 43 Administration and the Clinton Administration.

Clinton 1993 – 2000
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 8.775%


Bush 2001 – 2008
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 0.624%

During the Bush 43 Administration while the population grew it as not significant enough to promote growth. Middle class incomes stagnated under the Bush 43 Administration and there was no significant technical or scientific innovation that created new markets. Twitter and FaceBook despite their widespread popularity don't count.

So what did the corporate interest and the wealthy do with THEIR TAX CUTS during the Bush 43 Administration?

They invested the money in China, Brazil, Viet Nam, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. etc. etc. and since that don't have to pay U.S. taxes on that money until it is repatriated to the United States they kept that money there. It's being used to hire workers and build factories to sell goods and services all over the world. That's why emerging market economies are seeing the biggest increased in growth of middle class and that is why the middle class in America is shrinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 03:49 PM
 
28,766 posts, read 9,426,823 times
Reputation: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
The whole concept that tax cuts for the rich will somehow stimulate the economy is the biggest con job foisted on the American people in the last 30 years.
Let the tax cuts expire for "the rich" then, and reap the highly contractionary effects (see my post on Romer's research). Is additional economic contraction the result you're hoping for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Here
9,012 posts, read 7,181,973 times
Reputation: 4260
Another butthurt post by those upset with people who make more coin than they do. Boohoo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 04:44 PM
 
10,963 posts, read 4,331,295 times
Reputation: 3087
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Let the tax cuts expire for "the rich" then, and reap the highly contractionary effects (see my post on Romer's research). Is additional economic contraction the result you're hoping for?
They are not investing the money in the United States even with the present tax cuts in place.

The reality is staring you in the face

Bush 2001 – 2008
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 0.624%

That's right during the Bush 43 Adminstration annual increases in private real fixed investment averaged LESS THAN 1% AYEAR with the Bush Tax Cuts.

If capital is allowed to flow freely it will ALWAYS flow were the opportunity for profit is the greatest given an investor's risk tolerance. That is no longer the United States of America.

Where is the money going?

To invest in factories and business in China, Viet Nam, Brazil, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and other places around the world. Also if you are major financial institution it's perfectly logical to take loans from the FED at record low interest rates and trade the money in the commodity, currency, equity, and bond markets and generate profits rather than invest in a country where consumers spending is weak, the population is aging, the cost of labor is high, and prospects of future growth is not near as good as in emerging market countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 04:55 PM
 
1,069 posts, read 399,120 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
They are not investing the money in the United States even with the present tax cuts in place.

The reality is staring you in the face

Bush 2001 – 2008
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 0.624%

That's right during the Bush 43 Adminstration annual increases in private real fixed investment averaged LESS THAN 1% AYEAR with the Bush Tax Cuts.

If capital is allowed to flow freely it will ALWAYS flow were the opportunity for profit is the greatest given an investor's risk tolerance. That is no longer the United States of America.

Where is the money going?

To invest in factories and business in China, Viet Nam, Brazil, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and other places around the world. Also if you are major financial institution it's perfectly logical to take loans from the FED at record low interest rates and trade the money in the commodity, currency, equity, and bond markets and generate profits rather than invest in a country where consumers spending is weak, the population is aging, the cost of labor is high, and prospects of future growth is not near as good as in emerging market countries.
Not necessarily true....tell us, how much tax did you pay? Think you conveniently forgot to answer my question?

Those of us who pay the lions share of income taxes...how much did you contribute last yr, and why would I want to pay extra when those recieving free services from the GOvt are not paying their fair share?
I am willing to pay more if everyone's taxes go up, if others go down mine should....any other way is discrimination....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,267 posts, read 24,988,293 times
Reputation: 7021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK View Post
Proven by whom? You?

If they stimulate so much then why aren't we currently being "Stimulated" by your stupendous economic theory? We've had these tax cuts for ten years now and the economy has been in the crapper for nearly half of that. Not to mention Bush's abysmal job creation record. Trickle down is propaganda.
When you have the dems and obama in charge for the last 4 years, absolutely destroying the economy with their tax, spend and anti-business policies, its no wonder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK View Post
"Fact"
Notice the link? From the White House? See where the deficit went down from 2004-2007?

Why don't you discuss the actual facts? Your article, based on opinion, can't hold up to FACTS.

Another epic FAIL thread.

Last edited by CaseyB; 12-03-2010 at 06:15 PM.. Reason: the quote replied to has been removed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top