Actually, the lower tax rates created MORE tax receipts and also stimulated economic growth. So it actually did work. What didn't work was home owners defaulting on their mortgages.
Of course lowering taxes doesn't work when you spend like crazy. Everyone keeps focusing on lowering taxes, yet I'm talking about lowering taxes for investors such as capital gains and incentives for small business. I'm not talking about tax cuts across the board or for the rich. Criticize what I am arguing, not what you think I am arguing. And, I'll ask again. Why are you skeptical?
you mean the growth that's going on right now, the dow is lower than when GWB took office. fool's gold
I didn't say that the stimulus was already effective - as at last count, only 100bb or so of the 700 of it has even been allocated - it's pretty stupid to say it is ineffective (though that hasn't stopped you, has it? )....I'm making a very simple point that you refuse to accept, I guess to salvage BBS pride. When you need a quick injection of consumption in the economy - why would you pay $1.00 - S cents on the dollar rather than $1.00?
show me someone who believes that we can just flip an switch to fix an economy on the brink of depression, cratered by 8-yr of incompetence leading to the bankcruptcy of multiple industries, and i'll show you an ignorant fool
Correlation and causation are two arguments that are totally lost on an ignorant American public who will believe what is easiest to comprehend, but not always right. You fit squarely in that mold.
LOL, the only one who cares on this board about salvaging their BBS pride is you, Sam. Your point was not that, your point was that multiplier effect can be accurately measured, and I said it couldn't, especially with government deficit spending as it does not factor in how that deficit is reduced.
LOL, what's the causation of the stock market tanking. what's the results of the decrease in taxes. more investment for a housing bubble?
traitor, stop lying the mantra of the most popular Republican president over the past 25 years, Ronald Reagan, was to lower tax rate. that was on top of his agenda. once in office, he immediately effected a huge tax cut. by his 2nd term, he realized that tax cut did not work as well as it was advertised. Regan then reversed course; he raised taxes, not once, but twice in his 2nd term. learn from President Reagan.
its simple logic why tax receipts go up when taxes decrease, people will wait to take their gains in the year of the decrease, its a statistical anamoly that corrects itself going foward.
so your take is that it was a statistical anomaly that Reagan first implemented a huge tax cut, only to raised taxes twice later. my take is that Reagan, recognizng that the budget deficits continued to rise notwithstanding the huge tax cut, did a course correction to contain run-away budget deficit. ergo, the two tax cuts. the tax cut did work for Reagan nor either one of the Bushes. but the tax increase, in the beginning of the Clinton administration, did help him to bring the budget deficit under control, towards generating a budet surplus by his 3rd year in office. Tax increases helps to bring the budget under control; the reverse is true for tax cuts.
You would be wrong. There is no simple logic, tax revenue went up for several years when the tax rate went down, it can't be attributed to simple statistical anomaly. In fact the tax revenue went up for all tax brackets during the tax cuts which include lower income brackets that usually doesn't have the ability/asset to shift their cap gains from one year to the next.
That's a rather naive way of looking at this, this is not black and white, Bush's problem was he cut taxes and increased spending. So while the tax revenue grew, the spending/debt grew even faster. Would you like to go back to the 70s where top bracket was 70% and inflation was double digit?
The pinnacle of the Leftist Utopia has yet to arrive... Sex Tax Everytime you have intercourse, give Uncle Sam a dollar.
Think about it this way- There are 155,000,000 taxpayers (income tax filed) The top 50% in income pay 96% of all income tax The bottome 50% of filers pay 4% of all income tax The top 1% in income pay 33.7% of all income tax The top 5% in income pay 53.8% of all income tax Let's take the middle income filers as those that are between the top 5% and the 50% or the 45% of the filers who pay 42.2% of the income tax. This is basically your middle income filers- there are approx. 70,000,000 of these filers. So if the deficit is 1.8 trillion this year and you want to balance the budget here is what it would take- each of the 70 million middle income filers would have to come up with an additional $11,000.00 in taxes- every single one of them and each of the 7.5 million of the top 5% income filers will each have to pay an additional $129,000.00 in taxes - anybody who thinks we should raise taxes should go ahead and volunteer their share (at least we would know who really believes in their economic model) The spending has to be slashed sooner the better or we will have hell to pay. This doesn't factor in the total debt an additional 12-14 trillion $$$ The government cannot spend us into prosperity. Sorry, I am pessimistic about the course Bush started and Obama is following with regard to borrowing your way out of debt.
stop making things up. the tax bracket was never 70% In the United States, the top marginal federal corporate rate for taxable income over $18.3 million is 35%; it used to be as high as 45% in the 70s because tax rates for individuals are always lower than the corp tax rate, your baseless claim is but a lie.
Got it - so essentially anytime a set of facts or theories indicate that you are mistaken - you will just claim they are unreliable without providing any of your own. Internet 101. I see you have taken that class, unlike macroeconomics.
Explain to me how the multiplier effect for government deficit spending factors in paying off the deficit in the future. Please, do.
the success of the Japanese economy, from a worn-torn nation to become the 2nd biggest economy in the world, blows your claim out of water. currently, the budget deficit is ~30 to 40% of GDP; post WW2, Japan has been operating at 200+% of GDP
