Clinging to a belief without evidence. Reducing taxes increases growth
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.
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/
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.
Related Discussions
- 126
Obama's 68% Approval Rating
So President Obama's approval rating after one month is...only 68%. Our expectations of him on Inauguration night were too high. His approval rating back on Jan. 20 was around 80%.
- 10
Republicans expected to line up behind New START
Yahoo:WASHINGTON – Despite near gridlock in the Senate, Republicans were expected to swing behind a new arms control treaty with Russia that President Barack Obama said they will like, even though some are reserving judgment until Obama can assure them the pact won't set back U.S. defenses against...
- 39
Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully befor
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...
- 158
How many more will die today- before we push them liars away?
Well folks, here we are with well over a dozen of crack pots running our government. Trying to push on us their health care plans that they themself will not accept.But yet- their so called concern for WE THE PEOPLE, is proven false by their actions. If they were so concern for WE THE PEOPLE- why...
- 46
Obama is changing gun laws, what do you think?
The White House had said Mr. Obama would in the coming weeks seek stricter gun-control measures but hadn't provided details until today. Mr. Carney said the president would consider limits on high capacity magazines and would support efforts to prevent people from buying guns through unlicensed...
- 69
I for one have had about enough of Mr. Obama
Just thought I would drop by and make a small post. You can agree or disagree, makes no nevermind to me. You have all seen the News. I for one do not like what I am seeing. I am posting the following two posts, around.LET'S, WE THE PEOPLE, KEEP TURNING UP THE HEAT. SOONER OR LATER, SOMETHING WILL...