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.
By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA will increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents use static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.
High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. Reduction's in high marginal tax rates will boost long term economic growth, and reduce tax shelters and other forms of tax evasion. The economic benefits of ERTA according to President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.
Every time in history that our taxes were raised, our economy fell further into a recession/depression. Every time. Things only pick up, when taxes are dropped.
This is all Reagan voodoo trickle down theory economics. You know the era where taxes were cut and spending went through the roof and the deficit ballooned. Did not work then...will not work now. Get a history book.
It is hard to find, isn't it! You would think it would be easy, from what our government feeds you.
here you go. it took me about 5 minutes to find 4 examples of economic growth following an increase in federal taxes. This is of course just within the 20th century, it isn't easy to find data from the 1700's and 1800's.
the first that comes to mind, are payroll / social security taxes, which were implemented in 1937. US real GDP DOUBLED in the next 10 years.
we increased the top income tax bracket in 1950, and real GDP increased by about 50% by 1960
then we raised the top rax rate in 1993, until 2000, while real GDP and median incomes continued to grow, and private job growth was very strong.
in the "easy credit" environment that is supposed to create jobs... and the "low tax rate" environment that is supposed to create jobs... we are actually creating FEWER JOBS than we did in higher tax rates and higher interest rates of the 1990's.
The Dems got what they wanted. The Repubs demonstrating, very clearly, that they all agree, that we must payoff the "special" people first and foremost.
Get a clue, bob. Ending the tax cuts would have been highly contractionary. Read Romer's (Obama's former economic advisor) research. She learned the truth: Obama's agenda of redistributing the wealth by letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2% will damage the economy even further. Romer resigned because she realized Obama's ideology is destructive to our country.
Unfortunately, the Dems were caught between a rock and a hard place... Not passing the tax cuts extension would have meant career political suicide for some politicians... The corporate lobby was in full force on the tax cuts issue... Not passing it would have meant loss of support for future campaigns for Democrats... But the UI extension was also needed to prevent a complete economic meltdown...
here you go. it took me about 5 minutes to find 4 examples of economic growth following an increase in federal taxes. This is of course just within the 20th century, it isn't easy to find data from the 1700's and 1800's.
the first that comes to mind, are payroll / social security taxes, which were implemented in 1937. US real GDP DOUBLED in the next 10 years.
we increased the top income tax bracket in 1950, and real GDP increased by about 50% by 1960
then we raised the top rax rate in 1993, until 2000, while real GDP and median incomes continued to grow, and private job growth was very strong.
in the "easy credit" environment that is supposed to create jobs... and the "low tax rate" environment that is supposed to create jobs... we are actually creating FEWER JOBS than we did in higher tax rates and higher interest rates of the 1990's.
Oh, and by the way -- that "sharp increase in economic growth in the 1980's" was due to private debt expansion.
The bottom line is that, no matter what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck say, there's just not a very strong correlation between tax rates and economic growth.
They got stomped because they want to raise taxes during "the worst economy since the Great Depression", and they got stomped because they waited until the very last minute to deal with something as fundamental as what the hell our tax rates will be.
Standing up for their Marxist tendencies is why they lost in Nov., I know you want them to just keep marching down the same path, but its about time they realize that their kind only make up a bit less then 20% of the population.
we increased the top income tax bracket in 1950, and real GDP increased by about 50% by 1960
The top bracket back then was a taxable income of $400,000 and over. Adjust that for inflation, and the top bracket should currently be taxable incomes of about $3 million and over.
The top bracket back then was a taxable income of $400,000 and over. Adjust that for inflation, and the top bracket should currently be taxable incomes of about $3 million and over.
I thought the top tax bracket at that time was 91% on all income over 300K?
here you go. it took me about 5 minutes to find 4 examples of economic growth following an increase in federal taxes. This is of course just within the 20th century, it isn't easy to find data from the 1700's and 1800's.
the first that comes to mind, are payroll / social security taxes, which were implemented in 1937. US real GDP DOUBLED in the next 10 years.
we increased the top income tax bracket in 1950, and real GDP increased by about 50% by 1960
then we raised the top rax rate in 1993, until 2000, while real GDP and median incomes continued to grow, and private job growth was very strong.
in the "easy credit" environment that is supposed to create jobs... and the "low tax rate" environment that is supposed to create jobs... we are actually creating FEWER JOBS than we did in higher tax rates and higher interest rates of the 1990's.
Congrats, you found some statistics, but what do the prove, nothing. I put on my left shoe first one day, and the stock market fell, I can even show you the statistics to back that up.
The top bracket back then was a taxable income of $400,000 and over. Adjust that for inflation, and the top bracket should currently be taxable incomes of about $3 million and over.
Sure, and the Republicans would STILL be against letting tax-cuts expire on just those making over $3 million, right?
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.
