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.
George W Bush was the most prolific tax collector in our nation's history. During Clinton's 8 years, $5.66 trillion was collected. During Bush's 8 years, $7.45 trillion was collected.
More to the point, the "rich" (top 1%) paid an average of 21.3% of their income under Bush, MORE than the 20.6% under Clinton.
How did this happen? Lower marginal tax rates under Bush spurred economic growth--the whole pie got larger. The rich ended up paying more tax, and a higher fraction of total taxes. The lower 99% paid less of the total tax, as a percentage
Shouldn't the tax debate--over future tax rates--be shifted to focus on maximizing average tax rates and minimizing the top marginal tax bite?
George W Bush was the most prolific tax collector in our nation's history. During Clinton's 8 years, $5.66 trillion was collected. During Bush's 8 years, $7.45 trillion was collected.
More to the point, the "rich" (top 1%) paid an average of 21.3% of their income under Bush, MORE than the 20.6% under Clinton.
How did this happen? Lower marginal tax rates under Bush spurred economic growth--the whole pie got larger. The rich ended up paying more tax, and a higher fraction of total taxes. The lower 99% paid less of the total tax, as a percentage
Shouldn't the tax debate--over future tax rates--be shifted to focus on maximizing average tax rates and minimizing the top marginal tax bite?
Decreased capital gains tax rates did indeed bring in more revenue than did the higher tax rates under Clinton. Increased capital gains rates will again decrease revenue as investors will be less likely to trade for investments that cost them more in taxes than profits.
More money, more taxes. They paid a lower tax rate under Bush, so if the tax rate had been held to the same as it was under Clinton, they'd have paid even more in taxes, so we might have been able to finance the wars we are fighting, instead of charging it to the first national bank of China.
More money, more taxes. They paid a lower tax rate under Bush, so if the tax rate had been held to the same as it was under Clinton, they'd have paid even more in taxes, so we might have been able to finance the wars we are fighting, instead of charging it to the first national bank of China.
wrong, what would have happened is that the money would have been put away and not used, and the tax base would have fallen, which means LESS tax revenue. dont you learn anything from history? the economy is not a zero sum gain, raising taxes does not mean more revenue to the government.
wrong, what would have happened is that the money would have been put away and not used, and the tax base would have fallen, which means LESS tax revenue. dont you learn anything from history? the economy is not a zero sum gain, raising taxes does not mean more revenue to the government.
I disagree. You can't "put away" money and not use it. Its taxed if its in savings accounts, or other projects where the money is tied up.
What lowering the tax rate on the richest Americans did was to allow them to pool wealth, that they didn't need, and spent it on things that didn't trickle down to the rest of us (namely, foreign investment).
Taxes were at over 90% for the top 5% during WWII, and the economy still grew.
More money, more taxes. They paid a lower tax rate under Bush, so if the tax rate had been held to the same as it was under Clinton, they'd have paid even more in taxes, so we might have been able to finance the wars we are fighting, instead of charging it to the first national bank of China.
rbohm's right: the lower tax rate goes hand in hand with higher tax collections. I'm afraid we are about to watch the teeter-totter go the other way, with tax rates going up and tax collections going down.
Oh!Bama, won't you learn? The quest for social justice should not take precedence over arithmetic (and prosperity.)
Last edited by marcopolo; 08-16-2010 at 12:42 PM..
Reason: typo
rbohm's right: the lower tax rate goes hand in hand with higher tax collections. I'm afraid we are about to watch the teeter-totter go the other way, with tax rates going up and tax collections going down.
Oh!Bama, won't you learn? The quest for social justice should not take precedence over arithmetic (and prosperity.)
I disagree, and I feel that my statement from before still matters.
As far as Bush "growing the economy", I always rely on something I heard a long time ago.
I can't remember who said it anymore, but they said that if you want to know how a Presidents economic policies worked, look at the 4 years after their term.
So, in essence, The first 4 years of the Bush Presidency were largely due to Clinton, things went relatively well, a small recession at the beginning, but we had an attack, so to be expected.
The second 4 years of Bush were all his making, Damned awful economy, bottom fell out. President Obama is still dealing with the Bush economy. The next 4 years will show what the Obama policies will do, could be good, could be bad. I'm not sure at this point to be honest.
Its held pretty good, in my mind. I mean, the first four years of the Reagan administration weren't great economically either, but the next 4 years were good.
Our economy is so big, its like turning the Titanic. It takes a while (4 years) to really change course.
I disagree. You can't "put away" money and not use it. Its taxed if its in savings accounts, or other projects where the money is tied up.
What lowering the tax rate on the richest Americans did was to allow them to pool wealth, that they didn't need, and spent it on things that didn't trickle down to the rest of us (namely, foreign investment).
Taxes were at over 90% for the top 5% during WWII, and the economy still grew.
you still dont have a clue do you? do you know why the economy grew during world war ll? WE were supplying the world with arms, and food, and other materials needed to fight the war. our industry was running at top speed cranking out as much stuff as possible and then some. if high taxes are so good for the economy and tax collections, then why didnt tax revenues soar during the depression? FDR raised taxes, so that should have caused more revenue to the government by your calculations, what happened?
why did substantially LOWER taxes spur the economy and tax revenues to the government in 1921? why did the economy start to fall back to a depression era economy when world war ll was over? why did truman reduce taxes, which caused the economy to rebound? why did JFK lower taxes which again caused the economy to rebound? same with reagan and bush 43. with ONE exception, EVERY TIME taxes are raised, the economy slows down, and tax revenues fall. the only time i can find that it didnt happen was under clinton, and that was because of the tech bubble, and the revenues that finally came in from the government buying up the assets of the failed savings and loan companies during the reagan administration.
as far as not being able to put away money, you again have NO clue. anyone can put money away from the governments grubby hands, you just have to follow a few rules. most people cant afford to do it, but it can be done.
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.
