It's never Conservative policy and philosophy... it's always some outside force. Conservatism, tax cuts, and trickle down will always be right. They're almost in the Bible.
Shall I post the chart showing job growth during president’s tenure going back to Harding? You'd be surprised in the disparity between Dem's and Repub presidencies.
Signed, Joe the Plumber The fact of the matter is that one of the only reason rural americans primarily vote Republican is because of the abortion issue. But hey, good for those folks with an estate of over $5M. Screw you poor minimum wage folks who should be working 27 jobs.
I didn't question that. Do you honestly believe Clinton tax rates were the leading cause of job growth during the 90s? You've posted that several times on this board, and every time, posters from both sides have told you that correlation is weak.
Weird how all those jobs created during that bubble endured, while the jobs created in other bubbles disappeared when the bubbles burst.
If it costs you $90k to hire someone who generates $100k in revenue, you're going to be taxed on the $10k net profits regardless of the rate. Whether the rate is 20% or 40%, you would still make profit and hire the employee. The tax rate on marginal profits will never affect whether hiring someone is or isn't profitable unless you have a 100% tax rate - and even then, you'll never take a loss that you wouldn't have otherwise. Even at 99%, you're better off hiring the person than not. Now, a payroll tax cut WOULD have that impact because it lowers your cost of hiring instead of taxing profits. But it's the Dems that proposed that idea - not the GOP. Apparently, this stuff IS rocket science for you.
Considering how the internet is an even bigger part of our lives, not really. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bubble". The "internet revolution?"
No one argues that Clinton's tax rates directly CAUSED growth - simply that they didn't prevent it. Or realistically, they didn't even slow it. It could even be argued that the fiscal health those rates created freed up tons of capital to boost investment and indirectly led to a lot of the boom. The argument would be: Higher tax rates -> lower government borrowing -> lower interest rates -> easier access to capital for companies -> economic boom. No one now is suggesting to raise rates to create growth. They are suggesting to raise rates to generate fiscal health which has all sorts of other positive consequences. It's not a coincidence that interest rates spiked once the tax deal was announced.
No, not completely the leading cause But the point being that a higher tax rate did not hinder job growth as some people continually postulate.
Sorry you are correct, I should say it impacts the capital available for additional hiring. The payroll tax cut proposal is not on the employer side, so it doesn't reduce the cost of hiring. It's not a supply-side cut.
Is there a similar situation in US history with lower taxes that can definitively say that it did not slow growth down, even slightly? Anyways, it doesn't really matter. Tax cuts, raising taxes, or government spending is not going to pull us out of the hole. It will be a slow and long recovery as individuals and companies fix their balance sheets.
The lesson from the nineties is its the economy stupid. exponential growth in technology led to exponential growth in wealth. exponential growth in wealth with healthy tax rates led to a budget surplus. I've tried to give less credit to clinton for the country's prosperity as i've gotten older, but I still like to blame Bush II for our current situation.
umm but there is no correlation to your claims above also.. It's the same as saying if I wear Red the Rockets win and if i dont they lose. Who's to say if Bush didn't lower the tax rate that only 2 million jobs or zero jobs were created.
Indeed. Spoiler <object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object> Spoiler although one marvels that keef's conception of loyalty only encompasses his party, and omits his country.
I'm not really sure. Like the Clinton situation, there are always other factors going on when we raise and lower tax rates, so it's hard to make the direct connection. But I think looking back at history, there hasn't been a particularly strong correlation with tax rates and changes in employment, from my understanding.
Unemployment was close to 8-10% before Reagan. The highest bracket had to pay 70% of federal income tax. I don't think that would be the best solution to drive our current unemployment issue down.
