[MERGE] Historic Tax Rates, Taxation vs. Economic Growth, ETC. [MERGE]

[Joecooool]

Will should love this shit, they have charts!

Growth vs. Tax Rate

HIGHER taxes on the rich means MORE money circulated back into the economy. The economy needs money to circulate. (It's the lubricant that makes the economy work) - The more money moves from one hand to another, the more transactions involved, the healthier it is, and the better it works.

That is why trickle down doesn't work. First, and foremost. The rich don't let it trickle down. They hoard it. How do you think that they got to be rich in the first place?

Secondly, and most importantly, the best thing for an economy is to inject cash and capital at at the lowest level, and from there it passes through the most hands, poor people buy food in local shops, local shops buy other services from local suppliers. OK, yes, some of that money eventually, and inevitably, works its way to the big corporate companies, and from them, into the hands of their wealthy stockholders.

But once its with the rich, they don't spend it..... they don't want to, don't need to, and can avoid doing so until its absolutely necessary.

Just look at the economy today. The big corporations are making record profits. But they are not investing that money back into the economy. Not creating jobs. Record corporate profits + low employment = proof that trickle down is a myth.

Money given to the rich mostly goes dead. Sits in assets, savings, cash on hand. Money given to the poor, goes straight back into the economy buying goods and services.

Want to help the economy. Cut taxes for the middle class, offer benefits to the needy poor, and demand that the uber rich pay their share.

[VITE1]

It's amazing these people forgot to look at the Kennedy tax cuts and the massive growth after that.

Can you say "Biased"

[mrvette]

Welfare turns over ~1.5X in the LEGAL economy, BUT it enables folks to spend time on ILLEGAL activities, drugs, crime, etc....calling for MORE .gov to keep it to a dull roar......

NOW, you ever get a job from a poor person, or a non business type, except for some .gov job?? nope, and you won't either.....so you have to look to a business to hire you, and get paid well, so IF you can get a job as a decent level administrator, you are rather well paid, and so considererd upper class, and your SALARY typically turns over 7.5X in the economy......

as with most workers......

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

It's amazing these people forgot to look at the Kennedy tax cuts and the massive growth after that.

Can you say "Biased"

I clearly see the tax cuts of 1964 you are talking about in their charts.

But since you open the door...

Kennedy did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point. Before the kennedy tax cuts, the tax rate was 91% on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70%.

The gist of what this article states is that "when marginal taxes on the rich were below 40% growth remained below 4.5%. When top taxes were above 65% growth tended to be higher, even going above 6%. Historically, higher taxes on the rich have correlated to higher growth."

Kennedy's cuts kept the highest rate above 65%, so his point stands.

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Well this failure at using common sense and his brain tells me all I need to know to stop reading.

Nobody ever got rich by savings.

Wealth comes from successful investment; which, lubricates the fucking shit out of the economy when it's done wisely.

Of course, with investment comes risk. Fortunately though, that risk can be mitigated through careful research and experience.

There is no guarantee that any individual investment will succeed. Over time, however, a prudent investor who chooses his investments wisely and continues to hone his skills will usually see a return on the original investment.

Saving money on the other hand, will never produce that investment return. If you're not hiding it in a box in the ground, or underneath the mattress, sure... you might get a *very* small return in the form of interest... but I never, ever heard of anyone getting rich from their savings account.


Whoever wrote that article: two things are very obvious.

1. He knows nothing of investment and wealth creation.

2. He had an obvious liberal agenda in mind when he wrote that article.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The rich don't let it trickle down. They hoard it. How do you think that they got to be rich in the first place?

See Thomas? This is a perfect example of when it is a good idea to just save the time, call it stupid, and laugh that someone is actually that ignorant.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by VITE1

It's amazing these people forgot to look at the Kennedy tax cuts and the massive growth after that.

Can you say "Biased"

Or Reagan

Or Bush...yes, the Bush tax cuts created economic growth and increased tax revenue.

But that doesn't fit the mantra that the Bush tax cuts caused the recession...

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

The rich don't let it trickle down. They hoard it. How do you think that they got to be rich in the first place?

I consider myself somewhat of a Liberal. Not a lunatic, but more than some here.

This post is utterly ridiculous.

lubricates the ****ing shit out of the economy when it's done wisely.

Maybe, but this doesn't happen often.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I consider myself somewhat of a Liberal. Not a lunatic, but more than some here.

This post is utterly ridiculous.

But that is the true belief of (most) on the left.

[Will]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Please explain HOW raising income taxation boosts economic growth, productivity, etc.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Will

Correlation does not equal causation.

Do you really think that you are going to get liberals to understand this? You can't explain anything more than first order cause and effect. It has been proven time and time again that no matter how clearly you present it, they just don't get anything beyond that. Higher taxes = more revenue. Lower taxes = less revenue. It really is that black and white to them.

As said before, liberalism is nothing more than simple mindedness en masse.

[73sbVert]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Do you really think that you are going to get liberals to understand this? You can't explain anything more than first order cause and effect. It has been proven time and time again that no matter how clearly you present it, they just don't get anything beyond that. Higher taxes = more revenue. Lower taxes = less revenue. It really is that black and white to them.

As said before, liberalism is nothing more than simple mindedness en masse.

And trying to explain the Laffer curve is as much an exercise in futility.

But, they're the "smart" ones.

[SteelCityBlue]

The problem arises when you start to define both growth and investment.

If you think giving your money to wall street and buying stocks is investment that spurs the economy..

And if you think growth is what technically happenned in the last 12 years with the skewed allocation of increase in revenue...

I got nothing for you.

[Will]

Also, FYI, if you converted all of today's tax brackets to their equivalent counterparts from the 1950s and 1940s by adjusting for inflation, EVERY BRACKET WOULD BE LOWER.

There were additional upper brackets, BUT the very top brackets back in the day were a political gimmick. FDR's 1935 act creating a new top bracket applied to ONE SINGLE AMERICAN - John Rockefeller Jr.

In fact, I would fully support changing today's current rates to the rates levied in 1940, at the height of the New Deal era before WW2 began.

For individuals, income above $379,000 is currently taxed at the top marginal rate of 35%.

$379,000 today is the equivalent of $25,000 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 31%

For individuals, income above $175,000 and below $380,000 is currently taxed at 33%. $175,000 today is the equivalent of $11,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 14%

For individuals, income above $84,000 and below $175,000 is taxed at 28%. $84,000 today is the equivalent of $5,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 8%

All income below $61,000 in today's dollars would qualify for the lowest bracket in 1940, 4%.



P.S. --- Highest New Deal Federal Spending as a percentage of GDP?????

10.7% in 1934.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Will

Correlation does not equal causation.

Please explain HOW raising income taxation boosts economic growth, productivity, etc.

What is truly amazing is that Many studies by organizations like the NAACP, HHS and Cato institute all show a correlation between welfare and single mother home and crime rates. Yet the left keeps wanting more welfare.

They must hate poor people. And really hate Poor black people

[Joecooool]

"The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth....lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

[vetteman9368]

Hey look another crap bomb.

[R.Zaragoza]

[Loco Vette]

Too bad it correlates directly with increased tax revenues:

http://http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st159.pdf

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Too bad it correlates directly with increased tax revenues:

http://http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st159.pdf

Now who actually READ this?