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 surprising). Given the complete lack of evidence for this belief why is it still considered a truism?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic … s-20120917
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin … conomy.pdf
. that is easily understandable, easy Math
20% percent of the US population own 80% of the wealth here.
Now if you increase the tax on the 20% it means the 80% can increase their financial worth.
1 - Lowering personal taxes without lowering corporate taxes is the real problem... you can't encourage growth by eliminating one of the smaller obstacles, and leaving the larger ones.
2 - Charts like this don't really mean anything. They 100% do not account for, anything really. For example, this tries to pin the dot-com bubble bust on Bush's tax cuts, which really doesn't work.
Switch to a territorial tax system, and eliminate corporate taxes, then watch what happens.
I recommend you read the report, which is not at all summed up in the graph, it covers most of what you are addressing with the relevant data.
I don't see anything in the index or through search that addresses any of that. Care to point me to a section?
Maybe this will help.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2116
Okay I only got so far in your source because of this statement:
"Data from a CBO report released on August 13 indicate that the tax cuts will exacerbate income inequality by boosting the after-tax income of high-income households far more than that of middle- and low-income households."
You'll notice the "far more". Well, no kidding. You do realize that if I make $10 and you make $100 and I cut taxes by 20% across the board, you'll save more than me correct? However, take note that I am still saving money as well. You also realize that this report is dated as well? And not even really speaking of either horse in this race?
A quick search, I don't see anything that actually addresses my concerns. Want to point me to a page?
Same as before. I can only lead you to the piece if you haven't the interest to read the whole thing I cannot help you.
Right...
So, I skim over a report, the summary, and search for relevant keywords. You insist that it addresses my concerns, but can't be bothered to substantiate your claim in any form.
I don't read everything on the internet... that would be a huge waste of time. A study like this would be useless if it doesn't adjust for other factors, so I'm not going to bother reading it unless it does.
Two people have claimed that it does, but can't be bothered to quote it, or show where. It's no skin off my back, people make a lot of unsubstantiated claims online.
As I said your lack of interest is what makes your statements unfactual and therefore opinion. But you are welcome to your opinion. If your attitude is one of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story I applaud your effort even though it lacks evidence to support your argument. Sorry to bore you.
Ok, let's start over, because you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at.
Does this study in any way adjust for underlying market cycles? Yes or no?
Hi Jaxson.
Your statement suggests that you believe taxes can some how encourage growth. All of the historical data, however, says this is a false notion. The analysis introduced by Josak makes two things perfectly clear: (a) taxes serve only as an instrument for generating revenue for the government or as a mechanism for delivering incentives for some policies; and, (b) they have little or no affect on the economy and the GDP. Tax increases enacted by Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton were all followed by increased economy activity. In contrast, Jaxson, President G.W. Bush cut taxes twice and the economy did not grow; it declined. Contrary to the claims of a few, the GDP responds mostly to the influences of the global marketplace. We are indeed living in a global economy. In the years following WWII, the manufacturing base in the US was a dynamic force accounting for 40% of our economy. Today, after all the tax cuts in recent decades and the effects of NAFTA, we have seen the economy slow down considerably. We have watched the shrinking gains being channeled to a much smaller and more privileged segment of our society. {1}
Just compare today’s reality to what existed in the last century. Between 1921 and 1971, average incomes in the US grew by $30,533 with 70% of this prosperity going to the bottom 90% of the population and 30% into the pockets of the richest 10%. Since 1971, however, the winds of fortune have shifted dramatically. From then until 2008, average incomes have grown by $12,026 and all of this new wealth accrued to the richest 10% while incomes for the bottom 90% declined. “The remarkable gains of the (broadly-defined) "middle class" in the middle of this [the 20th] century stopped cold in the last quarter of the 1900s.” {2}
I find no causal relationship, Jaxson, between reduction of taxes and GDP growth. Do you?
{1} http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic … s-20120917
{2} http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … rs/262221/
It's like Chinese water torture, that trickle down, trickle down, trickle down mantra.
Here's another interesting misconception about Rs vs Ds and the economy.
And (can't resist) sneaking in another baffling comment by Romney:
"My own view is if we win on Nov. 6, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country," Romney told supporters. "We’ll see capital come back," he continued. "Without actually doing anything, we’ll actually get a boost to the economy."
An analysis in 2008 found that the average annualized return for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (and its pre-1957 predecessor, the S&P 90)
since 1929 was 0.4% under Republican presidents and 8.9% under Democratic presidents.
President Obama hasn't hurt that trend.
The S&P 500 has risen about 70% since he took office.
Right. But the economy is horrible.
Kudos for posting a graphic.
Not sure if it's just my browser, but I can't read it.
I'm hardly alone in still blaming Bush for the economy that crashed when he he was still president:
(CBS News) When President Obama delivers a major campaign speech on the economy today in Ohio, some in his party are concerned it will be too backward looking, with allusions to the presidency of George W. Bush. But according to a new Gallup poll, that message may resonate with voters.
More than three years after Mr. Obama took office, 68 percent of Americans still say former President Bush deserves a great deal or a moderate amount of blame for the struggling economy, according to Gallup. Just 52 percent say the same about Mr. Obama.
And even though economic indicators have kept alive concerns about the pace of the recovery, the poll suggests that independents are more likely to blame Mr. Bush than Mr. Obama -- and even more so now than they were last September.
In September, Gallup found that 60 percent of independents blamed Mr. Obama for the economy. Now, just 51 percent said Mr. Obama deserves blame, while 67 percent said Mr. Bush does.
Really, you've hit it on the head there.
People point to someone on the other side to blame.
D's blame Bush, with a D congress, for the crash. Then they blame the R senate, under Obama, for the slow recovery.
R's blame the D congress under Bush, then they blame Obama, with an ornery R senate/congress, for the slow recovery.
The truth is much more complicated, you have to take into consideration all branches to really understand what is going on. The problem is, total control is rare, and short-lived, so trying to find any useful information is almost impossible.
It's never going to change either, I'm afraid.. There will always be someone to blame.
More absurdities. Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget(which he didn't actually balance), with an R congress(the guys in charge of the budget). Clinton also had the dot-com bubble, with skyrocketing revenues, to help.
Then Bush gets the dot-com bubble pop, a major terrorist attack, and the hotly-contested wars to deal with.
All we ever hear is that Clinton was great and Bush sucked.
The two wars he created... and of course Bush had the housing Bubble to help his economic growth... which was still terrible. But I agree we should have a no excuses thread, and compare the results of recent policy, conservatives don't complain about the last two years of Democrat control of congress in the Bush presidency, liberals don't blame the conservative congress we have now etc etc.
Well, it's very important to look at every congress as well, instead of just the president.
But, inevitably the story will always be the same. R's introduce a bill meant to do X, which also does Y. D's like X, but hate Y, so they introduce their own bill to do X and Z. R's hate Z. They all vote against each other, and spend all their time saying 'Congressman R voted against jobs' 'Congressman D voted against jobs'.
Probably the single most important thing we could do would be to demand that every bill be just a bill with no piggybacking, no earmarks, no hidden agenda.
Okay, you say that. I don't doubt that the wars were Bush's idea. But, the POTUS can't just go to war without anyone else agreeing, too. There are three branches of the government that need to agree on decisions like that. Perhaps its hard to think rationally after you've watched your fellow citizens get slaughtered? I would have gone to war with the scumbags if I were in charge! All I am saying, is at the time, striking back was the general agreement. Now that we have hindsight, perhaps it wasn't the most prudent course of action. But we will never really know, will we?
Not only that , they agreed to Iraq based on the same intel they had gotten from The Clinton's in the previous administration.
Well actually Bush did just go to war and yes he can do that but then he needed congressional approval to continue the war and for further resources which he got, many Democrats were bullied into voting for that, there were cries that it was unpatriotic not to. I can understand Afghanistan though invasion was certainly not the answer, targeted strikes makes more sense, but Iraq was a monstrous mistake.
You may have heard of this recession business, it's been quite the hot topic, the biggest recession since the depression they say, they say it's responsible for the hardship we see, and I am just looking here... ah it started under Bush. Nice try though.
You may have heard of this Congress thing, the body that actually passes legislation, the housing bubble that burst under Bush. The Dems held Congress from 2006-2010 and the housing bubble, that got its start under Clinton. You also might have heard of the Carter years. That debacle that the Democrats created, and Reagan, who turned it around in only one term. No, it wasn't all peaches and cream but all economic indicators were moving upward and people felt the recovery, which is why he won his re-election bid by a landslide. Nice try though.
Sorry but I don't play the excuses game with the blame congress business, a president owns his period and the failures are his or not his Obama owns this period regardless of who is in congress and vice versa.
As for Carter is laughably irrelevant and historic, you may have heard of the fastest period of economic growth on the modern American age... under Clinton and you may have heard that poverty has fallen radically under every Democrat president except for Carter in the modern age and risen or stayed essentially the same in every Republican term see how irrelevant this is?
The topic was the current recession, keep up.
Actually, the topic is concerning taxes and effect on growth. Carter is only irrelevant to the Democrats because 1. it was a mess they created all on their own, and 2. they want to claim no one could have made a difference in one term.
If Obama owns it, then let him own it. You just shifted the blame to Bush. Which is it then? Obama owns it or it's all Bush's fault?
Yes taxes vs growth and the professional independent findings are... reducing taxes does not in any way increase growth.
Obama absolutely owns what occurs in his presidency (with how long policies take to kick in taken into account) if Obama had inherited a stable unemployment rate and suddenly raised it then he would be responsible but rather he inherited a skyrocketing unemployment rate and stopped it.
If someone inherits a fast growing economy and then crashes it and if that same person gets a great economy and slows it right down even before the crash then he owns that.
The reason I posted that graph is you always get these things and then you look out the window where people are actually living.........
Nope. Guy on the right said he would solve it by now. Nice try though.
I don't know where there data came from, but if your plot tax revenue vs gdp, lower tax rates result in greater tax revenue to the federal government. It is real simple to plot yourself (so you don't have to rely on someone else playing with the data). All of the data you need can be obtained from the IRS website.
I'm sure you will point out that those who published the reports were COMPLETELY Objective...
The CRS is independent yes but I am more than willing to look at info you actually present. I posted my link from an independent source with the full report and the charts to prove it from professional economists. Something similar from you would be great.
Do as I suggested. Go to IRS.government and download tax revenue data and and gdp data, then plot it yourself...then you know that what you see had not been manipulated to fit an idea. Just because an economist wrong an article or drew a graph doesn't keen there is no bias...they have an axe to grind just like anyone else.
Just from what you're saying there is already a problem revenue and GDP has to be calculated by capita and to the exclusion of inflation, if it's not it introduces endless variables that skew the results. That's just for starters.
So what your really saying is that you only want to see a graph of data that's been manipulated. In that case, I can't help you, although I am sure.there are.plenty of liberal think tanks that can provide you with cooked numbers to make your point.
No what I am saying is if you don't account for inflation and capita then the results are invalid, that's why professional economists spend time working over the figures and listing in accurate form what they are doing so you can follow their process.
For example say there is a tax decrease and then inflation goes up 3% that year. Without the tax reduction having any result it looks like revenue just went up 3% but it didn't the same amount of wealth was accumulated see?
This is important stuff if you want accurate results, if you ignore it the results mean nothing at all.
Simple stuff.
That's why I list independent sources which have been independently verified and with the report available so that anyone can read what they did in full.
Don't be insulting just because you were wrong.
by Scott Belford 12 years ago
Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully before answering.Using 4th Q 2009 through 1st Q 2012 GDP figures, after things stabilized somewhat from the debacle of the 2008 recessions, as a baseline for Obama, and comparing to the 6 similarly long periods from...
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-rep … 62554.htmlForeclosures topped 1 million in 2010 and the pace is expected to pick up in this quarter pushing home prices down an additional 5% and putting more borrowers under water.Yes Obama and the Democrats are doing a bang up job on the recovery!...
by Sychophantastic 8 years ago
Now that President Obama is wrapping up his second term and is widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the United States, a movement is afoot to have him added to Mt. Rushmore. Who's face do you think Obama's should replace? I'm voting for Thomas Jefferson since Jefferson owned slaves.
by ixwa 14 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
" ...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...
by Gay L Gray 14 years ago
What is there to say about the Core of a Government that has always had Corruption at her root from its conception. With all Honesty I must say when Obama begin to run for office I was surprised. He came from out of no where. He was selected to carry the burden of a very damaged and almost...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |