Landrieu as VP

"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

Source:
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

There's no question that the Reagan tax cuts spurred an increase in GDP. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Why did the long term drop in energy prices have a huge stimulative effect on the economy? Was it because consumers had more money to spend on good and services? Was it because the cost of operating a business was less? The cheaper oil prices had a similar effect as cutting taxes.

Most economist disagree along with President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.

After the Reagan tax cuts took place government revenue increased at a very healthy rate.

.

This is a very misleading statement. The Bush tax cuts provided the greatest percentage reduction for the lowest income families. Of course the rich received a much larger dollar value cut but that's because the rich make more money to begin with.

Source:
The President's Agenda for Tax Relief

 

The void between working class families and the wealthiest Americans is quite a bit larger than it should be and has been growing because of Bush's tax cuts. You want the rich to be richer? The void isn't simply free market related, the wealthiest citizens are able to play the system much better than the common man and are able to benefit significantly from flaws that exist to be exploited.

Now, I don't think more government is the solution; more government leads to more loopholes.

 

The "void" is larger than it should be by who's standards? Unless we have a massive redistribution of the wealth tax policy the void will always widen. The gains made by the rich from investments (interest, dividends, capital gains) alone will easily out gain all income from a working class family.

Do I want the rich to be richer? I could care less. What we need is a flat tax. If the rich guy makes 10 times more income than the middle class guy then he should pay 10 times more.

 

Agreed.

source: NCPA, an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute.

Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy

 

I said the Reagan tax cuts contributed to the economic recovery in the early 80's, along with TIME (since from the bottom of an economic cycle such as 81-82 if you do nothing things will eventually get better), and lower energy costs. If you believe the only miracle that caused the totality of the recovery in the 80's was the tax cut, you are fooling yourself. It's not that simple.

Yes, the long term drop in energy prices stimulated the economy because consumers had more money to spend. That's simple and always true.

It is not true that a tax cut works the same way as a long term drop in energy prices, but you have failed to account for that in your rush to prop up the republican agenda, which is incomplete.

When energy prices go down, all consumers benefit, and there is no over-arching negative impact on the economy. There are spot negatives, such as the devastation that occurred to the La. and Tx. economies that were decimated in the 80's and caused my departure from La. and move to Houston in order to exit the oil industry.

When you cut taxes, this has an immediate impact on the budget deficit. Depending on how large the deficit is when the tax cut is passed, and how large the tax cut is, it may or may not immediately impact the value of the dollar. If the deficit is large to start with, and the tax cut is large, the dollar will fall in value, all imports will rise in cost, and you bring inflation into the system, which robs all americans of their standard of living and probably of their retirement nest egg's value.

Unfortunately, that is where we are now.

There are many variables in the economic system, which you seem to discount and over simplify. Tax cuts are generally good in the short run to stimulate consumer spending, but the long term impacts are not predictable without knowing a lot of other information.

If the Reagan tax cuts were so good, how come Bush I encountered a recession in 1991-1992, he had to break his 1988 promise of "no new taxes" and increase taxes (hint, look at the growing budget deficit and the value of the dollar).

Bull. Percents can't be spent, only dollars can be spent. If I give you a 10% tax cut and you get $400 back per year, and you give me a 1% tax cut and I get back $40,000 a year, will you explain to me how you got a better deal?

And if gas goes from $1 to $4, healthcare increases at 10% a year, college tuition increases at 10% a year, food skyrockets, housing skyrockets, and gold and base metals surge in price, because the budget deficit is out of control, why is that a good thing? This is inflation, and it is caused by poor fiscal and monetary policy by the republican administration since 2001.

 

Sorry I must have missed that post and no I do not believe the Reagan tax cuts were the only reason the economy recovered. However, I do think it played a major part in the recovery.

Once again after the Reagen tax cut government revenue surged. Do you dispute this? I realize there was many other factors involved with this. However, I'm just trying to make the point that a tax cut alone doesn't always equate to lower revenue.

This is a loaded question and I think you've touched on some of the reasons already. There's many other variables that effect the economy such as market cycles, energy cost, deficits, spending, etc. While a low across the board tax rate is important for a vibrant economy it's not the entire equation.

Do you really believe it would be a fair tax cut if the person that pays $4,000,000 in taxes gets the same $400 tax cut as the person paying just $4,000 in taxes? It shouldn't be about who gets a better deal. After all, it was the tax payers money to begin with. The government is giving back your money so naturally the more you paid in the more you should get back. The only fair way for a tax cut is using the same percent for everyone. You pay 10 times more in tax then you should get 10 times more back. If you pay no taxes then you get nothing back. How is this not fair?

Please explain to me how the Republican party is to blame for high energy prices and not the democrats.

 

Page 8, post #120:
"LA,

Tax cuts can and have been used temporarily to put money back in consumers hands, to let them spend it and to stimulate the economy. Is this always the true? I don't think so."

I do not dispute that from the depths of a recession, there is little room to go, except up. I agree that tax cuts put money in peoples pockets and have a short term stimulative effect. I am glad you are beginning to see that there are many factors involved in economic performance, and it is not clear that the Reagan tax cuts alone worked a miracle on the economy in the 80's. I forgot to mention another major factor, which was de-regulation by the govt., which also helped make the economy more efficient. Many believe that the deregulation begun under Reagan was taken too far, and ultimately resulted in the lack of banking oversight that resulted in our subprime mortgage crisis today (short term gain, long term abuse and disaster).

I'm glad you are agreeing with me.

I believe in a regressive tax system, where the richest and most able to pay, pay the most. That's fair. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are both on record agreeing that they should pay much more in taxes. Buffet has 50 billion dollars, and makes about 10% a year on it, or $5 billion a year. He could pay 80% tax and still clear a billion a year. Any reason you know, any possible way to spend anywhere close to a billion a year? The really rich in this country don't pay enough in taxes, and Buffet and Gates agree with that statement.

The republicans have destroyed the value of the dollar in the last 7 years, by mismanaging the budget deficit, they mismanaged interest rates in 2003-2004, keeping them too low for too long, resulting in the housing bubble and enabling the subprime debacle. Now we are in a recession for all practical purposes, even Greenspan agrees, and must cut interest rates and continue irresponsible expansion of the money supply, which is causing foreign money to go elsewhere for higher real interest rate returns and stock market performance. That creates selling pressure on the dollar. The historically weak dollar is as responsible for $130 per barrel oil as the increased demand from China and India. The repubs owned the White House, and both houses of congress for 6 years, and they really put us where we are today, a royal mess.

 

Those of us who are not rich are being swallowed by a rising cost of living that has nothing to do with simple free market economics and has a lot to do with the rich benefiting from government mismanagement. Inflation doesn't occur at once and the folks with money are able to react way before the working class.

The working class is being undercut - a real schism is being created between the working class and the wealthy and it has more to do with government mismanagement than it has to do with rich folks simply working harder than the rest of the dumb working class schmoes. If you don't take care of the goose, it'll stop laying golden eggs.

 

i guess you would change your mind if you were rich

so what's stopping them from donating to reduce the national debt? if they really thouyght they should pay more they would.

wouldn't it be nice if we had a system where everyone paid the same percentage of income, did away with most exclusions and exemptions, etc? i think so. that would be fair.