The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[Big Fitz]

That's because I didn't assert it. But based on that logic (i.e. that lowering or raising taxes alone, causes "booms"), raising taxes in America would cause the biggest possible boom.
As would converting to a Theocratic Monarchy! Because Saudi Arabia is RICH baby!

My assertation was this: It's not that simple. The fact that the lower tax rates has nothing more for Ireland in the last three years, than countries with higher tax rates, would support this.
There are multiple factors that effect a national economy.

All the correlary / causation mistake. It's something we all must be careful of.

FITZ!!! Nice to see a little IQ coming from the Conservative side of this one! Exactly!
Since Saudi Arabia is a Theocratic Monarchy then that must be the Best way to insure a wealthy economy!
Since Ireland's economy improved when they had low tax rates then low tax rates alone must be the cause of a good economy BUT this isn't Ireland SO
Since America experienced a huge boom during a period of HIGH tax rates and CRASHED after the rates had been lowered for a while THEN High Tax rates must be what is best for America!

I mean, it's not like natural resources, technology, wars, stock market manipulations, natural and other catastrophes, over-regulation of say oh COAL and other industries , globalization, the Reversing of the Industrial Revolution and so on effect a country's economy!
Nope! It's just one thing! Low taxes! Which is why Ireland is so prosperous right now! Oops.
I think people need to quit taking one soundbite off of FOX or MSNBC and equating it to the panacea of all woes....

Indie... don't forget there are many factors that go into what creates an economic boom. It's kinda like doing a space shot. If you don't do and understand the math beforehand, you're going to miss your target most likely. It's about loading the chances of success. Here's a nice quip about preparation and knowing what's going on. Just the first minute is all:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnnLOg5R-IA]Blackadder The Third - Meeting The Actors - YouTube[/ame]

Getting drunk, putting on a silly hat and trust their luck is no way to be a good actor OR economist. In context that means that you can load the dice for success by understanding the effects of government policy on economic improvement. If you tax too much, business goes to where they can profit better. Regulate too little, and society is abused by activities that take advantage of the unaware, and make things unstable for business to succeed.

Lowering taxes to a level that corporations do not find onerous and actually encourages them to pay it because things are worse elsewhere (like Ireland is doing to the rest of the Eurozone) is one excellent example. Of course, low taxes and lacking other fundamentals will not help you much to either start, sustain or expand economic growth if not coupled with many other effects that pull business to a nation and facilitate it's growth and thereby a nation's prosperity.

That said, Ireland is doing the right thing. The rest of Europe is losing out to them, and they do not want to free themselves from the large tax revenues from those remaining businesses that haven't or cannot leave for greener pastures.

Money removed from private hands for public coffers is money that no longer earns and grows, no matter what the public sector employees screaming "We pay taxes too" think. Of course they do. It's a giant system interlinked, but... it requires so much cash to keep it alive, and therefore that money never leaves the system. Think of it like a city water system. You fill the system up, and then it dispenses water to the taps. Until that system is full (every tank, cistern and pipe having a full measure of water) you really can't have it function. The same with a government. Now, after the system is full, it dispenses as much as goes in to it usually, unless it is growing. Then the new parts need to be filled, so more water is needed to stay in system so it works once the growth has stopped. If you decrease the water levels in the system, problems, possibly severe, happen. Think of an 'air hammer' in the pipes of your house if your water ever got shut off at the main for a little while. Suddenly you have air in the pipes and the system makes a helluva lot of noise and possibly causes damage as the water comes back up to the faucet. That's the danger of drops in water in the system. Of course, if you have a water treatment center at the end of the sewage system, you can send a portion of that water back in to keep the system functioning, but it is not perfect, and you will always need more water from an outside source, because not all water used goes back into the sewers and helps grow the city in other ways or is just lost through faults in the system or just plain entropy.

Why does this relate to government and taxes? Because tax revenue functions the same way. Once a government bureaucracy is built, it needs to stay full. This means that funding must be maintained or there will be trouble. Sure, the bureaucrats are paid, and they then pay taxes (like water out of the tap and ending up going back in through sewage treatment), but this only helps maintain the system level and it is far from perfect. Now there is only so much money the system can take in without hurting the total supply (much like LA draining the hell out of their aquifer). The more you demand, and faster you use it, the more you damage the source and prevent it from being used in other ways to help grow the economy.

So Ireland has dropped the intake because it needs the aquifer of funding to replenish, and the less you take out, the better chance it has to grow and allow you to gain more later if it ever needs to.

Like I said, there are many factors, and the overall view of economics must be understood before people go off on half baked ideas that are nothing more than short term cornucopias and long term death. Ireland's got the right idea. Europe... yeahhhh... not so much.

 

[stans]

You haven't shown that Ireland's boom did not occur because they changed tax rates.

That's because I didn't assert it. But based on that logic (i.e. that lowering or raising taxes alone, causes "booms"), raising taxes in America would cause the biggest possible boom.
As would converting to a Theocratic Monarchy! Because Saudi Arabia is RICH baby!

My assertation was this: It's not that simple. The fact that the lower tax rates has nothing more for Ireland in the last three years, than countries with higher tax rates, would support this.
There are multiple factors that effect a national economy.

There is no secret, most corporations who moved there will tell you they moved there because of the lower tax, primarily. Only a liberal can't understand the obvious. What does that say about liberalism?

Local relative wage rates and worker skill are probably much more important than tax rate.

 

[IndependntLogic]

All the correlary / causation mistake. It's something we all must be careful of.

FITZ!!! Nice to see a little IQ coming from the Conservative side of this one! Exactly!
Since Saudi Arabia is a Theocratic Monarchy then that must be the Best way to insure a wealthy economy!
Since Ireland's economy improved when they had low tax rates then low tax rates alone must be the cause of a good economy BUT this isn't Ireland SO
Since America experienced a huge boom during a period of HIGH tax rates and CRASHED after the rates had been lowered for a while THEN High Tax rates must be what is best for America!

I mean, it's not like natural resources, technology, wars, stock market manipulations, natural and other catastrophes, over-regulation of say oh COAL and other industries , globalization, the Reversing of the Industrial Revolution and so on effect a country's economy!
Nope! It's just one thing! Low taxes! Which is why Ireland is so prosperous right now! Oops.
I think people need to quit taking one soundbite off of FOX or MSNBC and equating it to the panacea of all woes....

Indie... don't forget there are many factors that go into what creates an economic boom. It's kinda like doing a space shot. If you don't do and understand the math beforehand, you're going to miss your target most likely. It's about loading the chances of success. Here's a nice quip about preparation and knowing what's going on. Just the first minute is all:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnnLOg5R-IA]Blackadder The Third - Meeting The Actors - YouTube[/ame]

Getting drunk, putting on a silly hat and trust their luck is no way to be a good actor OR economist. In context that means that you can load the dice for success by understanding the effects of government policy on economic improvement. If you tax too much, business goes to where they can profit better. Regulate too little, and society is abused by activities that take advantage of the unaware, and make things unstable for business to succeed.

Lowering taxes to a level that corporations do not find onerous and actually encourages them to pay it because things are worse elsewhere (like Ireland is doing to the rest of the Eurozone) is one excellent example. Of course, low taxes and lacking other fundamentals will not help you much to either start, sustain or expand economic growth if not coupled with many other effects that pull business to a nation and facilitate it's growth and thereby a nation's prosperity.

That said, Ireland is doing the right thing. The rest of Europe is losing out to them, and they do not want to free themselves from the large tax revenues from those remaining businesses that haven't or cannot leave for greener pastures.

Money removed from private hands for public coffers is money that no longer earns and grows, no matter what the public sector employees screaming "We pay taxes too" think. Of course they do. It's a giant system interlinked, but... it requires so much cash to keep it alive, and therefore that money never leaves the system. Think of it like a city water system. You fill the system up, and then it dispenses water to the taps. Until that system is full (every tank, cistern and pipe having a full measure of water) you really can't have it function. The same with a government. Now, after the system is full, it dispenses as much as goes in to it usually, unless it is growing. Then the new parts need to be filled, so more water is needed to stay in system so it works once the growth has stopped. If you decrease the water levels in the system, problems, possibly severe, happen. Think of an 'air hammer' in the pipes of your house if your water ever got shut off at the main for a little while. Suddenly you have air in the pipes and the system makes a helluva lot of noise and possibly causes damage as the water comes back up to the faucet. That's the danger of drops in water in the system. Of course, if you have a water treatment center at the end of the sewage system, you can send a portion of that water back in to keep the system functioning, but it is not perfect, and you will always need more water from an outside source, because not all water used goes back into the sewers and helps grow the city in other ways or is just lost through faults in the system or just plain entropy.

Why does this relate to government and taxes? Because tax revenue functions the same way. Once a government bureaucracy is built, it needs to stay full. This means that funding must be maintained or there will be trouble. Sure, the bureaucrats are paid, and they then pay taxes (like water out of the tap and ending up going back in through sewage treatment), but this only helps maintain the system level and it is far from perfect. Now there is only so much money the system can take in without hurting the total supply (much like LA draining the hell out of their aquifer). The more you demand, and faster you use it, the more you damage the source and prevent it from being used in other ways to help grow the economy.

So Ireland has dropped the intake because it needs the aquifer of funding to replenish, and the less you take out, the better chance it has to grow and allow you to gain more later if it ever needs to.

Like I said, there are many factors, and the overall view of economics must be understood before people go off on half baked ideas that are nothing more than short term cornucopias and long term death. Ireland's got the right idea. Europe... yeahhhh... not so much.

As usual, you make solid and reasonable points.
I've never maintained that High Taxes help an economy. I just disputed the OP's assertion that simply lowering corporate tax rates would solve every single economic problem we have and result in a "boom". That's just ludicrous. If that were the case, GE would have never moved any jobs overseas because seriously, how much lower can you get than Zero?
We need to just throw the whole tax code out. Our effective rate for companies that send jobs overseas is 17% but our effective tax rate for companies who hire 100% American is between 25 - 35%. Obviously something is wrong there.
We also need to provide strong incentives for bringing manufacturing back to the US. The increase in this sector is the single biggest piece of encouragement I have seen because our transition to a FIRE economy is what has hurt us the most. Anything (within reason) we can do to reverse that trend would be a positive.

 

[stans]

Tax reduction has minimal effect on unemployment rate (less than 0.1% and 0.8% on the average) 1 and 2 years after the tax reduction respectively.

Reduce Unemployment with Little Price Increase

So? One to two years isnt much lead time. A change in interest rates typically takes 18 months to work through the economy. Look 3-4 years and things change.
You are an ignorant dishonest poster. The only thing you were ever head of was head-case.

Do you have a reference on interest rate lead time?

 

[itfitzme]

There are three rates of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland:

* 12.5% for trading income

* 25% for non-trading income

* A special rate of 10% for companies involved in manufacturing, the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) or the Shannon Free Zone ended on 31 December 2003

 

[itfitzme]

GDP growth doesn't show the Bush Tax cuts created economic growth and that it is more reasonable to conclude that they killed the economy,

actually Red China just switched to freedom so the private sector would be making the spending decisions, not the liberal geniuses who starved 30 million to death with their great spending decisions.

Bush wasn't president of China. OMG!!



The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are absolutely insane. You really need to double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have been getting worse.

 

[DSGE]

GDP growth doesn't show the Bush Tax cuts created economic growth and that it is more reasonable to conclude that they killed the economy,

actually Red China just switched to freedom so the private sector would be making the spending decisions, not the liberal geniuses who starved 30 million to death with their great spending decisions.

Bush wasn't president of China. OMG!!



The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are absolutely insane. You really need to double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have been getting worse.

Good. So I'm not the only one.

 

[IndependntLogic]

GDP growth doesn't show the Bush Tax cuts created economic growth and that it is more reasonable to conclude that they killed the economy,

actually Red China just switched to freedom so the private sector would be making the spending decisions, not the liberal geniuses who starved 30 million to death with their great spending decisions.

Bush wasn't president of China. OMG!!



The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are absolutely insane. You really need to double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have been getting worse.

Not only that but OMG is this idiot ignorant about China or WHAT????
I mean, there are a lot of intelligent Conservatives here but this guy is a popsicle stick in an ocean of surfboards.

 

[The Rabbi]

actually Red China just switched to freedom so the private sector would be making the spending decisions, not the liberal geniuses who starved 30 million to death with their great spending decisions.

Bush wasn't president of China. OMG!!



The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are absolutely insane. You really need to double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have been getting worse.

Not only that but OMG is this idiot ignorant about China or WHAT????
I mean, there are a lot of intelligent Conservatives here but this guy is a popsicle stick in an ocean of surfboards.

You would seem to be the ignorant one here. You've never explained what factors caused Ireland's sudden surge in growth.

 

[regent]

Last I read Ireland's economy was now in in bad shape, Business Week, November 2010 because of supply side, even to now bailing out its banks. The Irish miracle is now an economic and finacial disaster the article related. Reagan tripled the debt with supply side, hope the Irish do better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course you don't think so, that is the nature of insanity, the inability to tell the difference between reality and imagination.

At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

And your still imagining things that didn't happen. I never said that "a tax hike increases economic activity". Nor did I say that I "feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?"

The problem your having is that your to much of a chicken shit to present your own ideas. Rather, you have this myopoic view that either a one believes in "supply side economics" or one is a "liberal communist". Therefore, because I showed that GDP growth doesn't show the Bush Tax cuts created economic growth and that it is more reasonable to conclude that they killed the economy, then I must thing that "government spending is a more effective way to improve things?" It's that simple, but your too much of a chicken shit to actually say it. Instead, you imagine that it must have been said, then ask a question that implies something that never happened.

If you think that tax cuts always guarantee an increase in RGDP, they say so and then prove it.

I never said that "a tax hike increases economic activity". Nor did I say that I "feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?"

That's good. Because those claims are just stupid.

Therefore, because I showed that GDP growth doesn't show the Bush Tax cuts created economic growth

You think you showed that? LOL! That's funny.

and that it is more reasonable to conclude that they killed the economy,

 

[IndependntLogic]

Bush wasn't president of China. OMG!!



The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are absolutely insane. You really need to double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have been getting worse.

Not only that but OMG is this idiot ignorant about China or WHAT????
I mean, there are a lot of intelligent Conservatives here but this guy is a popsicle stick in an ocean of surfboards.

You would seem to be the ignorant one here. You've never explained what factors caused Ireland's sudden surge in growth.

Pardon oh Whackjob but seriously, you're not even worth responding to. You want everyone to answer your stupid bullshet questions but you never state anything of substance e.g. you've posted several times in this thread and the best you have to offer is petty insults. Ooooh. Impressive.
What caused th boom in Ireland? Who cares? But while they were booming with low taxes lots of places were booming with high taxes. Now we have all long figured out that you're too f-cking stupid to see the relationship so tell ya what junior, why don't you just stomp your little feeties and throw another tantrum.

Or would you care to actually address an issue? For instance, what is the single greatest contributor to private company success in China?

(LOL! Just kidding! We know you don't address topics or issues! )

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass-Steagall was enacted in 1933 at 5% and was emasculated in 1996-7 to 25% and fully repealed in 1999.

Huh?

And careful with the quote function.

I screwed up erasing the quotes to narrow down to the line of interest. The author was itfitzme. Sorry again.

No problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It absolutely does. We just haven't been able to measure length or time precisely enough untill relatively recently. All pre-Einstein measurements were imprecise as I said above. In fact you could define relativistic velocity as the velocity at which we can detect changes in length-time (precision and accuracy) from the static length-time.

Btw, my last job title, before I retired a few years ago was Chief Electronic Engineer at Rutgers University, one of the 56 research universities in the US. Our mandate was to develop electronic instrumentation that was used in collaborative experiments at accelerator labs such as CERN, Fermilab, SLAC etc. and laboratory instruments such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopes. Do you really want to keep arguing about physics? I don't. This is an economics forum and that's what I'd like to discuss.

The Newtonian measurement of my yardstick does not disagree with reality because of the Theory of Relativity.

No but your measurement is inaccurate. Space-time measurements require relative motion between the object being measured and the measurer. That's our misunderstanding.

No but your measurement is inaccurate.

Not on Earth it isn't. Glad we agree.

 

[itfitzme]

Now that I've got some time, let's go down the list of ideas and information that you've added which help illuminate the functioning of the economy as it relates to the OP "vindication of supply side economics".

---

1: We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. You don't blame Ireland's unemployment on the low corporate tax, do you?
2: It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....
3: Yeah, you make life easier for suppliers, they increase supply. That says nothing about lower rates increasing tax revenues
4: Link?
5: You provided a link to the Heritage Foundation claiming the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010? I must have missed it. Could you provide the link again?
6: You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?
7: What was their unemployment and growth rate before they lowered their taxes? GDP per capita before they lowered taxes? GDP per capita now?
8: What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted. At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
9: What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted. At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
10: Huh? And careful with the quote function.
11: You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"? You didn't take very many science classes, did you?
12: Yes!
13: At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
14: Toro said that, I agreed. Just to be clear.
15: post #73. The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics
16: The Newtonian measurement of my yardstick does not disagree with reality because of the Theory of Relativity.
17: That's good. Because those claims are just stupid. You think you showed that? LOL! That's funny.
18: No problem
19: Not on Earth it isn't. Glad we agree

-----------

That is nineteen posts. In that, two sentences that might be considered contain information, "We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world", "I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve". Beyond that, twenty one questions, half of them having nothing to do with the post your replying to. Oh, the one that says it the best, "Huh? It fits your picture. Maybe you might try "Doh!"

At least others actually put in the effort to find actual data and the balls to commit to a conclusion. At the least someone else bothers to go look up the current tax rates for Ireland.

Let us see how other posts compare.

-------------------------

Flopper: "In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:
U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Plunges To 40 Year Low Of 12.1 Percent | ThinkProgress The real problem is not the rates. It's a combination of high rates with a slew of credits and deductions that lower the actual tax. Large multinationals often pay no tax while small businesses get screwed. Cut the rates and eliminate some of the credits and deductions."

Rabbi: "Corp tax receipts have varied from 6.8% in 1940 to 20.9 in 1944 (and were 20.6 in 2000), to 14% in 2008. So your thesis is undermined by your faulty information. That's what you get for citing Think Progress and other brain-dead leftist institutions. Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary"

-------------------------

In one post each, there are two sets of date and values. It includes a link to that info and the authors interpretation. The second contains four sets of date and values along with a link. That is two comments and they managed to pack in more than eight pieces of information. You did two in 19 posts. And that is being generous in comparing "mixing supply side..." with "6.8% in 1940"

For better or worse, at least they give others some information to work with.

There is this engineering measure of information entropy. We can take that concept and use it here as a ratio of the amount of information per post. Your number 2/19 = 0.11. That is an expectation of 0.11 pieces of information per post. Their number 8/2 = 4. That is an expectation of four pieces of information per post. They present 36 times the amount of information.

Are you just high?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, this isn't about "fairness" which is meaningless. Tax policy should be about the best way to raise revenue without killing the economy. An uncompetitive corporate tax structure that is excessively complex will not raise optimum revenue and will affect the economy negatively.
Ireland has shown what happens when you cut rates to globally competitive levels. Companies relocate to your country and the economy improves. This isn't rocket science.

I didn't say anything about fairness. I said everybody should have some skin in the game.

Ireland current corporate tax rate is:

12.5% for trading income
25% for non-trading income
They had a 10% rate for manufacturing income for awhile, but I think that was temporary and has expired.

What Newt has suggested is about 15% across the board which would make us more competitive than any European countries and most African and Asian countries. Then relax some unnecessary and punative regulation and given our work ethic and other protections here, I'm pretty sure the world would be clamoring to set up shop here. And moving operations overseas would become far less attractive for our home grown industries too.

I bolded the word fairness in your post. So don't tell me you didnt say anything about fairness.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not only that but OMG is this idiot ignorant about China or WHAT????
I mean, there are a lot of intelligent Conservatives here but this guy is a popsicle stick in an ocean of surfboards.

You would seem to be the ignorant one here. You've never explained what factors caused Ireland's sudden surge in growth.

Pardon oh Whackjob but seriously, you're not even worth responding to. You want everyone to answer your stupid bullshet questions but you never state anything of substance e.g. you've posted several times in this thread and the best you have to offer is petty insults. Ooooh. Impressive.
What caused th boom in Ireland? Who cares? But while they were booming with low taxes lots of places were booming with high taxes. Now we have all long figured out that you're too f-cking stupid to see the relationship so tell ya what junior, why don't you just stomp your little feeties and throw another tantrum.

Or would you care to actually address an issue? For instance, what is the single greatest contributor to private company success in China?

(LOL! Just kidding! We know you don't address topics or issues! )

IOW you cannot defend your statement.
So we must take it as established that since the only change noted is the tax structure, this must account largely for the rise of the Irish economy.
See, not too hard, was it?

 

[The Rabbi]

FITZ!!! Nice to see a little IQ coming from the Conservative side of this one! Exactly!
Since Saudi Arabia is a Theocratic Monarchy then that must be the Best way to insure a wealthy economy!
Since Ireland's economy improved when they had low tax rates then low tax rates alone must be the cause of a good economy BUT this isn't Ireland SO
Since America experienced a huge boom during a period of HIGH tax rates and CRASHED after the rates had been lowered for a while THEN High Tax rates must be what is best for America!

I mean, it's not like natural resources, technology, wars, stock market manipulations, natural and other catastrophes, over-regulation of say oh COAL and other industries , globalization, the Reversing of the Industrial Revolution and so on effect a country's economy!
Nope! It's just one thing! Low taxes! Which is why Ireland is so prosperous right now! Oops.
I think people need to quit taking one soundbite off of FOX or MSNBC and equating it to the panacea of all woes....

So please enlighten us on what it was that changed in Ireland other than tax rates to account for their boom.

What boom is this?

A little slow here?

Beginning in the early 1990’s, unprecedented economic growth saw the level of Irish real GDP double in size over the course of a little more than a decade. There have been many reasons advanced for Ireland’s success over this period, including EU membership and access to the Single Market; Ireland’s low corporation tax rate and a large multinational presence; a high proportion of the population of working age; increased participation in the labour market especially by females; a reversal of the trend of emigration toward immigration; sustained investment in education and training; co-ordinated social partnership agreements and a more stable public finance position.

Irish Economy

 

[IndependntLogic]

So please enlighten us on what it was that changed in Ireland other than tax rates to account for their boom.

What boom is this?

A little slow here?

Beginning in the early 1990’s, unprecedented economic growth saw the level of Irish real GDP double in size over the course of a little more than a decade. There have been many reasons advanced for Ireland’s success over this period, including EU membership and access to the Single Market; Ireland’s low corporation tax rate and a large multinational presence; a high proportion of the population of working age; increased participation in the labour market especially by females; a reversal of the trend of emigration toward immigration; sustained investment in education and training; co-ordinated social partnership agreements and a more stable public finance position.

Irish Economy

Give it up DSGE. This blithering idiot is too stupid to realize taxes alone don't it. He's been Cut & Running from this little fact (from the same source), during the whole thread:

"The 1990s boom in the United States of America was an extended period of economic prosperity, during which GDP increased continuously for almost ten years (the longest recorded expansion in the history of the United States). It commenced with the end of the early 1990s recession in March 1991, and ended with the early 2000s recession, which started in March 2001. The boom largely coincided with the presidency of President Bill Clinton."

And we had higher taxes then! Therefore higher taxes must lead to a boom!

Rabbi will now dodge this like the pudgy kid in gym class during a game of .... dodgeball.

 

[The Rabbi]

What boom is this?

A little slow here?

Beginning in the early 1990’s, unprecedented economic growth saw the level of Irish real GDP double in size over the course of a little more than a decade. There have been many reasons advanced for Ireland’s success over this period, including EU membership and access to the Single Market; Ireland’s low corporation tax rate and a large multinational presence; a high proportion of the population of working age; increased participation in the labour market especially by females; a reversal of the trend of emigration toward immigration; sustained investment in education and training; co-ordinated social partnership agreements and a more stable public finance position.

Irish Economy

Give it up DSGE. This blithering idiot is too stupid to realize taxes alone don't it. He's been Cut & Running from this little fact (from the same source), during the whole thread:

"The 1990s boom in the United States of America was an extended period of economic prosperity, during which GDP increased continuously for almost ten years (the longest recorded expansion in the history of the United States). It commenced with the end of the early 1990s recession in March 1991, and ended with the early 2000s recession, which started in March 2001. The boom largely coincided with the presidency of President Bill Clinton."

And we had higher taxes then! Therefore higher taxes must lead to a boom!

Rabbi will now dodge this like the pudgy kid in gym class during a game of .... dodgeball.

There is no dodge, idiot. Did you miss the dot-com boom? Were you alive then? And with Ireland we are discussing corporate taxes. Willy raised them on individuals.
And we ended up with a recession in 2001 so I guess higher taxes did lead to a bust.
And you've never answered why Ireland boomed if it were not for their tax cuts.