"Scariest Jobs Chart Ever"!!

[The T]

Was I racist for buying an Obama Chia Pet when they were selling at walgreens? I thought it was historical.

I have the Plugs Biden Model...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

The economy of the 1950s is completely irrelevant to the economy of the 21st century. The world has changed. You're attempting to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Vast LWC]

It was hyperbole to prove a point.

Of course there were some women in the workforce, but nowhere near the levels we have today.

And the hyperbole is in fact basically accurate for pre-WWII data.

But what we didn't have in the workforce back in the '50s were Chinese workers willing to work for a dollar a day and competing for jobs with American workers.

Also a good point.

But the fact of the matter is, when one takes into account the larger percentage of the population that is now available and willing to work in the workforce, the unemployment rate is not high at all. Just saying.

 

[Vast LWC]

Was I racist for buying an Obama Chia Pet when they were selling at walgreens? I thought it was historical.

I have the Plugs Biden Model...

That is not racist at all. Chia pets are chia pets. I believe my buddy has a Bush chia pet. He calls it his "Bush bush".

Though the "Plugs Biden model" would be a bit funnier, IMHO. LOL.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea and where are all those Democrat nutters who claimed we were in a "Depression" when Bush had 4% Unemployment? Don't tell me we listened to them on Economic issues? My God,that's even scarier.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats undermined and preached 'Sky is Falling" gloom & doom for eight straight years when Bush was in there. Where are these same Democrats now that the sky really is falling? Something to think about i guess.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was a worse one:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c892ae67f8b9a084ac70200/great-depression-99.jpg

Notice that from the peak of the Great Depression unemployment dropped by half within 24 months. Today the rate has simply hovered between 9.5 and 10% for 24 months.
That's scary.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yea and where are all those Democrat nutters who claimed we were in a "Depression" when Bush had 4% Unemployment? Don't tell me we listened to them on Economic issues? My God,that's even scarier.

I'm sorry, who said that?

I'd like a quote please.

 

[uscitizen]

Guess who's gonna have their Bush tax cuts extended s0ns???


Another kick in the balls for the k00ks.............

Interesting that the economy with tax cuts was a Russian rocket

 

[Vast LWC]

Interesting that the economy with tax cuts was a Russian rocket

ROFL, missed that. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[pinqy]

Because as a percentage of the population, the amount of people available to work has doubled, making historical comparison useless in the way you are making them.
For instance, let's take a period where the unemployment rate was 25%, in the middle of the depression. If you counted the same percentage of the population that you have now actively seeking work, it would have been a 50% unemployment rate.

Except the Unemployment rate isn't a percentage of the population. It's a percentage of the Labor Force, which is the sum or Employed and Unemployed. So if you added in the women's participation, you'd be adding to the numerator and the denominator of the equation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

hmmm...guess what...

...it's not taxes causing the problem. You're retarded if you think so.

That 90% tax rate applied to incomes in 1950's dollars of over $400,000.

In 2010 dollars, that's over $3M per year.

For those of us with Math Skills, $3M is a far bigger number than $250,000.

And 90% is lot bigger than 39% Math person.

Does that mean you'd support putting the 400,000 plus bracket back at 90%?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

.

Hey dumbshit. If they're unemployed they're not making over $250k taxable.
Duh.

that was my point, Corky.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

hmmm...guess what...

...it's not taxes causing the problem. You're retarded if you think so.

Well, let's have a look at those unemployment rates in the 1950's, when the top rate was 90%

Oh my, look. One little blip over 7%, and otherwise...eh?

Looks like a top tax rate of 35% isn't exactly crucial to having low unemployment is it?

Next question: how do you think the deficit/debt looked back then? With those job killing (lol) income tax rates in place?

Any guesses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

You spelled 'Reagan era' wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

You spelled 'Reagan era' wrong.

LOL. Right. Except 2 years after the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the economy was booming.

Obamavilles are springing up all over the county

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, dumb asses, Bush cut the taxes. Yet, overall, from 2001 to 2009, the jobs added did not equal the US citizens graduating from high school and college.

Oh ya, those tax cuts really created jobs. IN China, Indonesia, and Mexico.

Clinton increased taxes on the top end, and look at the result. Best 8 years this nation ever had.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Published on August 13, 2003 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D. WebMemo #327



There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

You spelled 'Reagan era' wrong.

LOL. Right. Except 2 years after the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the economy was booming.

Obamavilles are springing up all over the county

Reagan tax cut passed August 1981 - 2 years later would be August 1983:

year over year GDP growth rate lower 2 years after Reagan's tax cut than it was when he passed it.

lololololololol