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.
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.
But these are facts, and not propaganda, so progressives won't choose to believe these.
If they lie enough, it becomes the truth to them. At least that's the idea.
Perhaps the libs will be satisfied when the tax rate is the same for everyone......say around 80% or so.
I've had 3 of them in the last week try to tell me that growth in federal revenue = an indication of a strong economy. My reply of course is, lets tax everyone at 100% and then see how strong the economy is..
What you fail to realize is if you are wealthy you can hire the best accountants who will figure out a way to lessen your tax load through the tremendous loopholes available.
What you fail to realize is if you are wealthy you can hire the best accountants who will figure out a way to lessen your tax load through the tremendous loopholes available.
The rich don't get wealthy paying taxes.
And what you fail to realize is that with higher tax rates, they have an incnetive to find ways to lessen their tax load and move investments far off into the future until tax rates drop again. This is why capital gains tax revenues DOUBLED after the Bush tax cuts were passed. At some point its beneficial to just pay the tax if the tax is low enough and if its high enough, its beneficial to pay nothing and move the profits down the road.
Math quiz.. Which is better, when the rich pay taxes, or when they dont?
What you fail to realize is if you are wealthy you can hire the best accountants who will figure out a way to lessen your tax load through the tremendous loopholes available.
The rich don't get wealthy paying taxes.
Ah the old "loophole" argument. Don't know what you're talking about? Use the word "loophole" and you'll win the argument.
The rich pay a tremendous amount in taxes. But they also pour a tremendous amount into their businesses to continue to create jobs and run a successful business.
I am self employed and pay myself a salary, which is taxed. I also put a ton of money back into my business to continue to grow it, and in turn, give other people opportunities. That money is a write off, as it doesn't end up in my pocket.
The rich get wealthy by not being stupid. I, personally, don't want to listen to a bunch of unsuccessful, poor people tell me how to make our country financially sound.
thanks to the republican, they force clinton to go along with tax cut, somthing, that link your provided did not mention. this link does not even begin to tell the whole story,. if I was you I would look for information somewhere else~!!
When the previous fiscal year ended September 30, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress hadn't passed a budget. A majority of Congress members wanted additional cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental controls, and the EITC. Their differences resulted from differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and anticipated revenues.[1]
Clinton writes:[1]“Armey replied gruffly that if I didn't give in to them, they would shut the government down and my presidency would be over. I shot back, saying I would never allow their budget to become law, "even if I drop to 5 percent in the polls. If you want your budget, you'll have to get someone else to sit in this chair!" Not surprisingly, we didn't make a deal.
It was CLINTON that didnt want the deep spending cuts which ultimately led to a "balanced budget" and economic growth. Clinton supported much smaller cuts which wouldnt have come close to a balanced budget.
Very different now because Huffington Post is claiming in this thread that it did work out well.. They are trying to give Credit to Clinton for the positive results..
That's just an out and out lie. Real economists have looked over the data dozens of times and it's very hard to say tax cuts caused revenue to increase. Even the most conservative estimates are that tax cuts added about 0.2% to the yearly growth rate during the Bush years and about about 15% of that 0.2% got taxed so the growth in revenue was only 0.02%-0.025% due to the tax cuts.
Guess what? Borrowing costs are higher then that and reckless tax cuts blow up the deficit so you actually end up net losing money because you have to pay back the principle as well as the interest on all that debt.
That's just an out and out lie. Real economists have looked over the data dozens of times and it's very hard to say tax cuts caused revenue to increase. Even the most conservative estimates are that tax cuts added about 0.2% to the yearly growth rate during the Bush years and about about 15% of that 0.2% got taxed so the growth in revenue was only 0.02%-0.025% due to the tax cuts.
Guess what? Borrowing costs are higher then that and reckless tax cuts blow up the deficit so you actually end up net losing money because you have to pay back the principle as well as the interest on all that debt.
Of course a few lefty economists, those really smart guys who think government spending is much, much better than tax cuts, of course they will not admit that yes indeed, those tax cuts increased revenue - the numbers don't lie, check them out.
The Bush tax cut money does not belong to the federal government. You can't continue to say that $700 billion is the governments. Hasn't been for ten years and the status quo would be to extend them, otherwise it is a tax hike. When will the Left understand the money does not belong to the government?
Last edited by sanrene; 12-04-2010 at 10:35 PM..
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.
