" ...The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.
The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.
"Today, Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan are promising another cut in tax rates and again predicting that good times will follow. But it’s not the easiest case to make. Much as President Obama should be asked to grapple with the economy’s disappointing recent performance (a subject for a planned column), Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would do voters a service by explaining why a cut in tax rates would work better this time than last time...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opini … .html?_r=1
Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires definitely do not result in significant economic growth. The wealthy take from the economy through dividends, capital gains, interest, etc., with little or no "work" or "labor." Far more economic growth would be generated if those funds were used to create jobs here in the United States and pay those who actually do the work more than minimum wage and something closer to the true value of their labor. Buying a million shares of a successful corporation and selling them shortly afterward at a huge profit does little to promote jobs or economic growth.
Debunked debunked and debunked some more. Republicans are peddling failed ideas. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 … 89686.html Tax cuts for the rich do NOT produce economic growth.
I'm tired of dealing with atavistic ideas.
The problem is not taxes, the problem is a government that isn't financially responsible. Someone said once that people will live within their means so that they can pay taxes to a government that can't live within its means. I remember the older generation that were dead set against taxes. Now it seems that people feel that more and more taxes are just "entitled" to a government. But why would someone that does live within their means or does well with investments be expected to pay more and more to a government that is overspending and increasing more debt and interest on that debt. The problem is not the guy or gal who works all week or the guy or gal that makes a fortune in the market, the problem is their spouse is racking up the credit cards faster than they can make the money. The solution is cutting them cards, not working yourself into the ground. Well our government is on a Gold Card spending spree down at Cartier's.
The older generation paid higher taxes. That's mainstream history.
It's also amusing you would think that someone who gets rich off the labor of others should be entitled to keep MORE of the exploited money they have acquired. Why are you in favor of exploitation?
That does not change the fact that they hated them even if it were true.
No poor person ever gave me a job. When I did take a job I entered into an agreement of my own volition. That is how it works. There is no automatic exploitation as you suggest just because someone does well. I have known some people that have done well. They usually worked twice the hours as I have at times. Even a poor person can buy a penny stock and become wealthy or an IPO of some company. How were they exploiting someone? A poor person can buy a medical stock IPO or penny stock where they could make a fabulous amount of money and be investing in a company that could wind up saving lives. The world does not owe anyone a living. It certainly does not owe money to anyone that did not earn it or work for it or take the risk of investing it.
You are asking the slave to give another slave a job (unless you are a CEO). The whole system is corrupt. People who are poor are severely disadvantaged in what choices they can and cannot make. They can't simply say, "I don't want to work at x" because they need to EAT. I know the fact is often lost in political debates, but it cannot be ignored.
Imagine if I dropped you in a field, and said you had to sell your labor power for 8 hours a day just to survive, or you WILL starve. Your choices were me, my friends, my family, or my cousins, all who owned separate businesses. Do you think that is a "fair" system?
Productive, meaningful work is what is required of society, not investing in an immoral corporation, which will not make one rich. You should ask yourself the question, is society meeting the human's needs, not, is man meeting society's needs? Capitalists are the real utilitarians, and the good they strive for is money.
It's absurd to claim that someone should work just to avoid starvation and to make someone else rich. We are one of the most mentally ill societies in the world, and we LEAD in depression and anxiety disorders. Why is that, if we are the richest nation on earth? We also consume more than anyone else, and are the most overweight.
I guess all that matters is that the IPhone still keeps upgrading, and we keep getting our oil. Human dignity, meaningful existence, and the future of the planet are secondary to money.
Well all I can suggest is that you find a piece of property and cut some timber and build yourself a cabin and hunt and fish and grow a garden and feed yourself and be self sufficient. That way you wont be part of- or enabling a system that you morally object to.
We want and need public services that cost money, but the public doesn't like taxes. The Neocons and the GOP establishment want a huge military machine and wars to occupy it, but they have all signed the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes. The result: a growing national debt.
If you think that taxes were actually cut in a time where government spending was increasing, then you deserve the hyperinflation that will befall you.
However, if you wish to see the unseen, then please read the book "Economics In One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http … litt00.pdf
Only 9%, on average, get put back in to economic growth. So my answer would be no.
You were just advocating tax cuts as stimulating the economy....
Also, do you think the internet boom was due to higher taxes?
From Paul Krugman's Friday article:
"Are you, or is someone you know, a gadget freak? If so, you doubtless know that Wednesday was iPhone 5 day, the day Apple unveiled its latest way for people to avoid actually speaking to or even looking at whoever they’re with.
So is the new phone as insanely great as Apple says? Hey, I’ll leave stuff like that to David Pogue. What I’m interested in, instead, are suggestions that the unveiling of the iPhone 5 might provide a significant boost to the U.S. economy, adding measurably to economic growth over the next quarter or two.
Do you find this plausible? If so, I have news for you: you are, whether you know it or not, a Keynesian — and you have implicitly accepted the case that the government should spend more, not less, in a depressed economy."
If they are allowed to work and the Democrats don't behave like the Sanhedrin in Passion of the Christ and get down on the floor and rend their garments and wail. Thus causing weak willed independants to change their votes.
Cause a Democrat never saw a tax that didn't cause him to fall in love and demand it be eternal.
Isn't that a little one sided? The 60's saw a boom with higher taxes, but with far less in all kinds of welfare. Later we saw a huge increase in giveaways (culminating in the housing bubble) and a depression.
Obama's giveaway - the largest in the history of the world, has done nothing for the economy except possibly drag it out further. Had that trillion dollars been invested in actual jobs rather than paying both individuals and corporations to sit back and do nothing it might have been helpful.
I really don't think there is any one thing that can produce a boom or bust. It takes a whole raft of things, all happening at once, to do that.
For those who inevitably come here and bash the topic as not credible because the quoted source is that leftist rag, the Huffington Post, note that the study came from this source:
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
Oh wait. I forgot. Numbers from the government are not to be trusted -- if they do not support your existing views.
There's no 'trickle down' Voters have been convinced there is though. In fact we have been tinkled on is more like it. Stimulus package? Give money to those who actually spend it not the rich who sit on it all while laughing at us from their ivory towers.
give tax breaks to the wealthy IF they employ more people otherwise increase their taxes.
Making some tax breaks for the middle class should help a lot. Why? Well, more spending by the middle class creates more jobs for the lower income earners and results in more consumer sales taxes to local & state govts. (which desperately need it).
by Stump Parrish2 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they...
by kerryg7 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a...
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Nickny798 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing...
by Josak5 years ago
A report from the Congressional Research Service finds there is no correlation in American history between economic growth and the lowering of taxes but that lower taxes on the rich do increase the wealth gap (how...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.