U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2020, 07:59 PM
 
2,006 posts, read 510,658 times
Reputation: 3203

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer View Post
The whole west coast needs to just slide off into the ocean. Either that, or a People's Army should go in there and straighten them out.
I never cease to be amused at how exercised people can get at what another state does. Especially a state they endlessly profess to loathe and wish would leave their sphere of awareness and so forth. And even more especially a state they know next to nothing about, barring a few perpetually fruitcake zones that are as representative as, say, drawling lobstermen are of Maine.

And how often it sounds like sour grapes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2020, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
3,827 posts, read 2,066,914 times
Reputation: 4631
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Just a reminder, JFK and Paul Samuelson, probably the greatest liberal American economist, did away with those punitive rates and the economy exploded to the upside. Sadly, Johnson signed the cuts into law after JFK was assassinated. Those tax cuts are significantly responsible for 18 straight years sporting GDP growth over 4%, IIRC average growth over that span was roughly 7%.

Don't take my word for it check it out for yourself.

ETA - GDP average growth the previous 10 years was ~3.2%.
18 consecutive years of GDP growth over 4%? Surely you made a typo?

Nevertheless, as you pointed out the tax cuts weren't passed until 1964.

GDP growth in 1962: 6.1% and 1963: 4.4%

High GDP growth (above 4%) in the 1970's, when that did occur, has to be balanced against the high inflation of the era.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2020, 09:15 AM
 
9,612 posts, read 10,235,075 times
Reputation: 8405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
18 consecutive years of GDP growth over 4%? Surely you made a typo?

Nevertheless, as you pointed out the tax cuts weren't passed until 1964.

GDP growth in 1962: 6.1% and 1963: 4.4%

High GDP growth (above 4%) in the 1970's, when that did occur, has to be balanced against the high inflation of the era.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
They thanks for catching that. Other than the fact I was doing several different things I can't explain the error(s). I was thinking of 8 and 13 year spans and wrote 18 for some reason and I also didn't note real GDP v. GDP.

What I meant to write and just looked this up to be sure................regarding the 1960s expansion we saw an 8+ year span with REAL GDP growth @ 5.2% average per year and a 13 year run with real GDP growth @ 4.5%.


Some notes about why the Kennedy/Johnson/Samuelson tax cuts really do matter (modern democrats have made a cottage industry trying to discredit these tax cuts).

1. We did see nice real growth in '61, '62 and '63 and all the way to 1973 (FWIIW there was a mild recession in '69 and '70). From the end of WWII until the early '60s The US endured several significant recessions - 3 under Eisenhower. Paul Samuelson, again likely the greatest American liberal economist/Nobel Prize winner etc., argued that the country was more or less locked into a short duration boom bust cycle in great part because corporate tax rates were so high they presented expansion and R&D disincentives. And individual rates were so high they guaranteed widespread cheating.

1.1 About the time Kennedy took office Samuelson and several other economists noted that we were headed into another recession that would likely take hold on in 1964. U3 was high and increasing, industrial output was decreasing etc.



This is a tidy 10 minute read of the day and players........

Tax History Project -- Paul Samuelson and Tax Policy in the Kennedy Administration

Real GDP

https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-g.../table/by-year

______________________


The key point in context is the person upthread positing the dreamy look back towards ~90% marginal rates painted an utterly false picture. The ultra-high tax post war period was somewhere between very tough and brutal on the economic front.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2020, 05:28 PM
 
2,599 posts, read 1,193,643 times
Reputation: 4738
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
At one time the income tax rate for the highest earners was 92%. That gave us the GI bill and free tuition at many colleges as well as a lot of infrastructure improvements that the middle class didn’t go broke creating. Just a reminder.
Very few people paid that tax, as there were a huge number of deductions and loopholes, som eof which seem ludicrous these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2020, 08:18 PM
 
8,717 posts, read 2,423,231 times
Reputation: 5588
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
At one time the income tax rate for the highest earners was 92%. That gave us the GI bill and free tuition at many colleges as well as a lot of infrastructure improvements that the middle class didn’t go broke creating. Just a reminder.

Just make it 100% for incomes over say $200,000 a year. Why stop at 92%. Before like we will be just like Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea. What could go wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2020, 09:26 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
3,895 posts, read 1,027,869 times
Reputation: 2329
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
"Overpaid Executive Tax" in San Francisco
Prop C passed a couple of years ago (the largest corporate tax increase in SF history), though Benioff and several others were proponents in re: 'the homeless tax'; now, as you mention, the 'OET' is up next. To think it was just short of a decade ago, there was the 'Twitter Tax Break' to actually lure companies to SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:26 AM
 
4,522 posts, read 3,909,891 times
Reputation: 10789
This tax seems designed to drive away small businesses.

$1.17m gross receipts is very low; at first I thought it was a typo and they meant billion, not million. They should have made it net revenue, anyway.

Also, the proposal does not mention profitability; the tax would apply equally to firms that are unprofitable, and to firms that are banking profits toward future downturns.

It also doesn't take into account the profit motive. The founder of a company has to have the right to make money. Who's going to start a company without the incentive to get rich? Certainly not the vast majority of entrepreneurs, even if there are an idealistic few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
2,911 posts, read 3,572,926 times
Reputation: 5607
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Just a reminder, JFK and Paul Samuelson, probably the greatest liberal American economist, did away with those punitive rates and the economy exploded to the upside. Sadly, Johnson signed the cuts into law after JFK was assassinated. Those tax cuts are significantly responsible for 18 straight years sporting GDP growth over 4%, IIRC average growth over that span was roughly 7%.

Don't take my word for it check it out for yourself.

ETA - GDP average growth the previous 10 years was ~3.2%.
Ah, yes, the trickle down theory...

Regards
Gemstone1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:55 AM
 
9,612 posts, read 10,235,075 times
Reputation: 8405
Quote:
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
Ah, yes, the trickle down theory...

Regards
Gemstone1

I have two responses.

1. Paul Samuelson was very liberal politically, so were most of his pals who worked out the early ‘60 tax cuts. And the tax cuts worked. And also PS has a Nobel Prize and writes several great Econ. Books.

2. Maybe you can explain why lower tax states and countries tend to outperform higher tax states and countries? Why not compare say Texas to New York or Tennessee to New Jersey or The US to France? Do that and report back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
2,911 posts, read 3,572,926 times
Reputation: 5607
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
I have two responses.

1. Paul Samuelson was very liberal politically, so were most of his pals who worked out the early ‘60 tax cuts. And the tax cuts worked. And also PS has a Nobel Prize and writes several great Econ. Books.

2. Maybe you can explain why lower tax states and countries tend to outperform higher tax states and countries? Why not compare say Texas to New York or Tennessee to New Jersey or The US to France? Do that and report back.

I have one response....Kansas

Regards
Gemstone1
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

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top