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.
Conservatives lost their way by not supporting reduced spending during tax cuts.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. The conservative argument then and now is that by some sleight of hand, reductions in taxes will miraculously increase business and thus increasing tax revenue!
See example:
"The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government."
Most sane people would like to pay less in taxes. More and more sane people desire something akin to a balanced budget or at least a budget that does not inspire fiscal recklessness. Reconciling those two desires strikes me as next to impossible.
Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Very true. Obama is spending like an even drunker sailor. This is also true. Casting aspersions at one, but not the other, is dishonest. Boehner is as dishonest as Pelosi. His only pass is that he is not presently running the show. That could change.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. The conservative argument then and now is that by some sleight of hand, reductions in taxes will miraculously increase business and thus increasing tax revenue!
See example:
"The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government."
That decreasing taxes increases spending, and gives the richest Americans more money to expand their business.
Of course, there is a fallacy in this theory.
For me, it boils down to this. The employers aren't going to increase production, and hire more people, unless demand for their product is higher.
If the middle class is supporting a disproportionate portion of the tax burden, then how are they going to have more money to spend, to create the demand, to create the jobs.
To me, the employers will see revenues go up if the middle class is granted a tax cut, or if the budget is balanced which will cease the steady decline of the value of our dollar.
But, they do have a theory, it just doesn't work in practical applications.
Most sane people would like to pay less in taxes. More and more sane people desire something akin to a balanced budget or at least a budget that does not inspire fiscal recklessness. Reconciling those two desires strikes me as next to impossible.
Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Very true. Obama is spending like an even drunker sailor. This is also true. Casting aspersions at one, but not the other, is dishonest. Boehner is as dishonest as Pelosi. His only pass is that he is not presently running the show. That could change.
Best and honest analysis to date. I couldn't have said it better. Too bad others do not see it that way, they much rather point fingers at one side while excusing the same behavior from the other side.
Best and honest analysis to date. I couldn't have said it better. Too bad others do not see it that way, they much rather point fingers at one side while excusing the same behavior from the other side.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. The conservative argument then and now is that by some sleight of hand, reductions in taxes will miraculously increase business and thus increasing tax revenue!
See example:
"The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government."
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
marginal tax rate cuts are proven to increase revenue. The problem is the republicans spent that revenue and beyond..
tax inreases from the same article
there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.
the democrats increse taxes as well as spending.
My choice is to choose the side that creates greater revenue and cut the spending before its too late.
Sadly there is no side proposing that.
thus I'm tea party and will pick and choose individual candidates at all levels
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
marginal tax rate cuts are proven to increase revenue. The problem is the republicans spent that revenue and beyond..
tax inreases from the same article
there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.
the democrats increse taxes as well as spending.
My choice is to choose the side that creates greater revenue and cut the spending before its too late.
Sadly there is no side proposing that.
thus I'm tea party and will pick and choose individual candidates at all levels
Funny you mention Coolidge, when his successor was meet with the Great Depression.
Roosevelts Fed chairman equated the great depression, and the economy to a poker game.
When everyone sits down, everyone has money to play. The game goes on and on, but what happens when one person gets a disproportionate sum of the money? They start taking everyones money because they can make larger bets. Sooner or later, players start dropping out of the game, because there is no money left for the to play with.
Then what happens, one person gets it all, and the game stops. This is what happened during the great depression. Coolidges policies lead to wealth pool at the top of the American economy. So there was no money for the "little guy" to play with anymore.
The same thing happened under Bush, tax cuts for the rich lead partially to our economic recession we are under right now.
The best way to keep the system fair, is to flat tax everyone at the same rate. That way the richest Americans are paying a fair share, not a lower tax rate than I'm paying in the middle class. This will decrease the debt, make the money we have worth more on the world stage, drive the price of oil down, and stimulate the economy like never before.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. The conservative argument then and now is that by some sleight of hand, reductions in taxes will miraculously increase business and thus increasing tax revenue!
See example:
"The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government."
In looking back at the original link when you linked it again, I found a very interesting bit where the blogger at Newsweek listed the 8 bloggers who are having the most influence of all and was very interested to see that number 8 was good old Kos who seemed to be being extolled there.
Well he wasn't a lot more extolled than Malkin but he was showed to be better at it than she. I can't agree with that.
Do you not think that waiting until after the election this fall to tell all those "rich" people how much their taxes will be raised is a dirty trick? Is there any way that not telling them right now could allow them to spend some of their money on expansion, hiring more people back, etc? I think that the nation has to suffer since the Dems refuse to show those people just how high their taxes will be in that they are holding on to their money, rather than spend it, and that is costing us jobs. In the end that may be worse than just coming out and telling people what will happen.
Funny you mention Coolidge, when his successor was meet with the Great Depression.
Roosevelts Fed chairman equated the great depression, and the economy to a poker game.
When everyone sits down, everyone has money to play. The game goes on and on, but what happens when one person gets a disproportionate sum of the money? They start taking everyones money because they can make larger bets. Sooner or later, players start dropping out of the game, because there is no money left for the to play with.
Then what happens, one person gets it all, and the game stops. This is what happened during the great depression. Coolidges policies lead to wealth pool at the top of the American economy. So there was no money for the "little guy" to play with anymore.
The same thing happened under Bush, tax cuts for the rich lead partially to our economic recession we are under right now.
The best way to keep the system fair, is to flat tax everyone at the same rate. That way the richest Americans are paying a fair share, not a lower tax rate than I'm paying in the middle class. This will decrease the debt, make the money we have worth more on the world stage, drive the price of oil down, and stimulate the economy like never before.
I like the idea of a flat tax but prefer the fair tax.
Certainly under our system time has proven Mariginal tax rate cuts increase revenue. The problem is more revenue the more governement will spend. its a death spiral for this country
Tax cuts are not "paid for" by government. The money never gets to the government if tax rates are cut.
The correct question that should be asked is that has government altered it's spending in case less revenue comes in.
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.
Best and honest analysis to date. I couldn't have said it better. Too bad others do not see it that way, they much rather point fingers at one side while excusing the same behavior from the other side.
