Why do Liberals Believe that Higher Taxes cause Economic Booms?

[mal]

Why do Liberals Believe that Higher Taxes cause Economic Booms?

What it must be like in the Mind of a Liberal... Arguably a Marxist. I had a Discussion with noted Boulder Leftist David Sirota this morning about Taxes and Economic Growth.

His Argument was that since the Economy was good during Clinton that it had to do with Clinton's Tax Rates and that returning to those by letting the Bush Era Cuts expire, will return us to that Boom...

How can anyone be that Ignorant of Economics and be lacking in basic Common Sense?

The rates increased at the top end from 31% to 39.6% under Clinton and the 2-year DemocRAT Congress he had.

The Boom happened in spite of the tax rates and was based on demand in the Tech Sector, from businesses networking computers, to People wanting computers, gadgets and toys in their own Homes...

It was also a product of Irrational Exuberance and easy/reckless lending and LOTS of borrowing against the unrealistically, ever increasing in value housing market.

The Funny thing is that David Sirota has acknowledged this in the past.

But when it comes to tax rates, clearly Clinton's taxes were what caused it.

But here’s a little secret about that period of time… The 10-year Economic Expansion began in March of 1991 and ended in March of 2001.

Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993 and his first Budget wasn't in place until almost 1994...

That Expansion began WELL before Clinton or the DemocRATS had ANY impact on it.

What happened in 1994?... That's right, the Republican Rout, followed by a Balanced Budget FORCED by Gingrich and the REPUBLICans that included Welfare Reform, something the DemocRAT Base almost Disowned Clinton for.

It's a LOT more complicated picture than the likes of David Sirota would want to admit.

And I have yet to have a Liberal explain this to me… What did the Federal Government do with the extra 8% in taxes it was getting that directly impacted the Economy and created Economic Growth?

I am Certain David doesn’t have an answer for that, but he does have a hold button and the ability to limit difficult Callers with Context and Substance to (1) minute as to Dishonestly continue his own Narrative.

The funny thing is, I called to tell him to stop referring to the Money that I Earn as something that the Government "gives" me when his discussing tax rates.

It's Offensive and Ignorant, and David is not a Stupid Man… But he’s obviously a Marxist and it shows.

This is how Liberals view your Income... It's the Collective’s first, and then they will see how much they feel that you Deserve of it.

Don’t EVER doubt that about the Left… To one level or another, they all feel this way about your Income and how you are a lucky, selfish son-of-a-bitch for daring to call your money your own FIRST.

If they had it their way, they would put all of the money in a pot and distribute as they feel is Fair and Equitable.

They talk a lot about “Fairness” when it comes to taxes and talk about how the Rich don’t pay their fair share…

50% of American’s don’t pay these taxes on Income…

You didn’t know that?… And what percentage of this 50% do you think Vote for DemocRATS who say they will raise the other 50%’s taxes to Subsidize their Lifestyles?

It’s worse than that… 5-10% of Americans pay the majority of Federal Income Taxes.

True Story.

Another True Story… Obama was for raising EVERYONE’S taxes, not just whatever he defined as “the Rich”, before he and his Party got their asses handed to them in November.

Don’t let these snake-oil salesmen Lie to you any longer.

Inform yourselves… You have the tools that Generations before you did not.

You have NO excuse to be the Ignorant puppets of these Marxists, so don’t…

Seriously, it makes the baby Jesus cry.

Copyright ©2010 - tha malcontent/americanfreepress.org​

peace...

 

[Truthmatters]

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

because the facts

 

[Truthmatters]

Why Tax Cuts Don’t—and Won’t—Create Jobs - Working In These Times

By Jack Rasmus
Last Friday, December 3, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the unemployment rate had risen once again. A full three years after the current recession began in December 2007 there is no end in sight as to when the jobs markets will recover. This is in stark contrast to the full recovery of corporate profits and bankers bonuses, now back roughly to where they were in 2006-07, according to U.S. government data.

Banks now have a hoard of cash reserves of more than a trillion dollars, according to the business press. However, as U.S. Federal Reserve Bank data show, as the biggest 19 U.S. banks recovered in 2009-2010, their lending to small and medium businesses declined steadily. Nor has that lending recovered in 2010. Without bank lending to small businesses—the main engine of job creation in the U.S.—there can be no job creation.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you fucks want to give them a extended tax cut to reward them for hoarding cash.

Just what we need , them to have more cash to hoard.

 

[Ravi]

Not even knowing who this guy is I'm going to conclude that mal is lying about what was said.

 

[midcan5]

It is not liberals, it is all thoughtful people who consider the evidence. Proof below:


"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the Republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'


Federal taxes have been reduced under Kennedy, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr, but you would think it was only the republicans who lowered taxes. State taxes are another issue and often dependent on property value and class. Class gets little press in America and anyone who mentions class is marginalized, after all this is the land of the free and you picked your class. Didn't you.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."(1)

If the above statement is true then why are taxes always mentioned as the panacea for economic woes. The reasons are quite simple, on occasion reduced taxes have stimulated jobs or so it seems, but more important is the propaganda that ties taxes to waste and corruption. It isn't really the taxes, it is the other part of the equation: government waste, handouts, pork. Add to that normal human greed, 'it's mine,' and you have the greatest con ever imagined and still perpetrated every election cycle as if voters were born again yesterday, literally.

Consider that our best years for all America were the times when taxes were highest. Consider too that the consequences of tax reduction starting with Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr has not done any appreciable good for the nation. Reagan/Bush had a major collapse of Real Estate and Savings and Loan requiring bailouts, and George W. Bush almost brought us the Great Depression II with massive tax cuts and low interest rates. Again bailouts were required. Pattern here? Ask yourself why are taxes still the number one political beating stick? No need you should know by now, it's all they have, as the Bible clearly states, you know the root of all evil. By the way the 'evil' ain't helping your nation prosper, it's called helping yourself - the golden rule disregarded - the Nation's health disregarded.

But why believe me lots of information below for those born awhile ago.


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!"The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness." The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


Tax Facts: "Surprisingly, many huge American companies pay no taxes to the U.S. government. In 2008, General Electric (NYSE: GE) owed no U.S. taxes, despite ringing up $10.3 billion in pre-tax income. (The complicated explanation involves the huge losses its GE Capital division posted in the U.S., which offset the gobs of money the company made elsewhere.)" 5 Surprising Tax Facts


"In 'America: Who Really Pays The Taxes?', two investigative reporters with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Donald Barlett and James Steele, traced the path by which tax rates for the very rich got lower and lower. It was not the Republicans but the Democrats-the Kennedy-Johnson administrations-who, under the guise of "tax reform," first lowered the World War II-era rate of 91 percent on incomes over $400,000 a year to 70 percent. During the Carter Administration (though over his objections) Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined to give even more tax breaks to the rich.

"The Reagan administration, with the help of Democrats in Congress, lowered the tax rate on the very rich to 50 percent and in 1986 a coalition of Republicans and Democrats sponsored another "tax reform" bill that lowered the top rate to 28 percent. Barlett and Steele noted that a schoolteacher, a factory worker, and a billionaire could all pay 28 percent. The idea of a "progressive" income in which the rich paid at higher rates than everyone else was now almost dead." Above from Howard Zinn, 'A People's History of the United States'


"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases." Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


"Should progressives embrace entitlement reform? Or look elsewhere to narrow the gap? An exchange between two leading fiscal experts."
by Isabel Sawhill and Greg Anrig Isabel Sawhilland Greg Anrigfor Democracy: A Journal of Ideas


"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax


Presidents and Jobs. The Bushs were the worst, what does that tell you about tax cuts for the wealthy?
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ


""How can hedge-fund managers who are pulling down billions sometimes pay a lower tax rate than do their secretaries?" ask the political scientists Jacob S. Hacker (of Yale) and Paul Pierson (University of California, Berkeley) in their deservedly lauded new book, "Winner-Take-All Politics." If you want to cry real tears about the American dream — as opposed to the self-canonizing tears of John Boehner — read this book and weep. The authors’ answer to that question and others amounts to a devastating indictment of both parties." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?src=me&ref=general


(1) Tax cuts spur economic growth


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

 

[Paulie]

It is not liberals, it is all thoughtful people who consider the evidence. Proof below:


"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the Republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'


Federal taxes have been reduced under Kennedy, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr, but you would think it was only the republicans who lowered taxes. State taxes are another issue and often dependent on property value and class. Class gets little press in America and anyone who mentions class is marginalized, after all this is the land of the free and you picked your class. Didn't you.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."(1)

If the above statement is true then why are taxes always mentioned as the panacea for economic woes. The reasons are quite simple, on occasion reduced taxes have stimulated jobs or so it seems, but more important is the propaganda that ties taxes to waste and corruption. It isn't really the taxes, it is the other part of the equation: government waste, handouts, pork. Add to that normal human greed, 'it's mine,' and you have the greatest con ever imagined and still perpetrated every election cycle as if voters were born again yesterday, literally.

Consider that our best years for all America were the times when taxes were highest. Consider too that the consequences of tax reduction starting with Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr has not done any appreciable good for the nation. Reagan/Bush had a major collapse of Real Estate and Savings and Loan requiring bailouts, and George W. Bush almost brought us the Great Depression II with massive tax cuts and low interest rates. Again bailouts were required. Pattern here? Ask yourself why are taxes still the number one political beating stick? No need you should know by now, it's all they have, as the Bible clearly states, you know the root of all evil. By the way the 'evil' ain't helping your nation prosper, it's called helping yourself - the golden rule disregarded - the Nation's health disregarded.

But why believe me lots of information below for those born awhile ago.


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!"The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness." The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


Tax Facts: "Surprisingly, many huge American companies pay no taxes to the U.S. government. In 2008, General Electric (NYSE: GE) owed no U.S. taxes, despite ringing up $10.3 billion in pre-tax income. (The complicated explanation involves the huge losses its GE Capital division posted in the U.S., which offset the gobs of money the company made elsewhere.)" 5 Surprising Tax Facts


"In 'America: Who Really Pays The Taxes?', two investigative reporters with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Donald Barlett and James Steele, traced the path by which tax rates for the very rich got lower and lower. It was not the Republicans but the Democrats-the Kennedy-Johnson administrations-who, under the guise of "tax reform," first lowered the World War II-era rate of 91 percent on incomes over $400,000 a year to 70 percent. During the Carter Administration (though over his objections) Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined to give even more tax breaks to the rich.

"The Reagan administration, with the help of Democrats in Congress, lowered the tax rate on the very rich to 50 percent and in 1986 a coalition of Republicans and Democrats sponsored another "tax reform" bill that lowered the top rate to 28 percent. Barlett and Steele noted that a schoolteacher, a factory worker, and a billionaire could all pay 28 percent. The idea of a "progressive" income in which the rich paid at higher rates than everyone else was now almost dead." Above from Howard Zinn, 'A People's History of the United States'


"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases." Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


"Should progressives embrace entitlement reform? Or look elsewhere to narrow the gap? An exchange between two leading fiscal experts."
by Isabel Sawhill and Greg Anrig Isabel Sawhilland Greg Anrigfor Democracy: A Journal of Ideas


"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax


Presidents and Jobs. The Bushs were the worst, what does that tell you about tax cuts for the wealthy?
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ


""How can hedge-fund managers who are pulling down billions sometimes pay a lower tax rate than do their secretaries?" ask the political scientists Jacob S. Hacker (of Yale) and Paul Pierson (University of California, Berkeley) in their deservedly lauded new book, "Winner-Take-All Politics." If you want to cry real tears about the American dream — as opposed to the self-canonizing tears of John Boehner — read this book and weep. The authors’ answer to that question and others amounts to a devastating indictment of both parties." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?src=me&ref=general


(1) Tax cuts spur economic growth


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

You couldn't have just posted a historical quote from someone that summarized all that crap?

 

[mal]

Not even knowing who this guy is I'm going to conclude that mal is lying about what was said.

Go Fuck yourself, Asshole!

Your Obsessive Projection about Lying Precedes you...



peace...

 

[loosecannon]

Why do Teatards Believe that lower Nominal Tax Rates cause Economic Booms?

 

[Againsheila]

Maybe it's because our economy was booming when our top tax rate was 70% and minimum wage had the highest spending power in history?

 

[boedicca]

The last time we had marginal tax rates of 70% was in the 1970s, and that was hardly a booming economy. Stagflation anyone?

And that 70% rate applied to incomes over $200,000, which in today's dollars is over $800,000.

 

[loosecannon]

The last time we had marginal tax rates of 70% was in the 1970s, and that was hardly a booming economy. Stagflation anyone?

And that 70% rate applied to incomes over $200,000, which in today's dollars is over $800,000.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. As if the gold standard hangover of the late 70's early 80's was caused by the nominal tax rate. Never mind the OPEC boycotts, the debt piled up in VN and our discontinuation of the gold standard and the requisite corrections......

 

[Immanuel]

The answer to your question, Mal, can be answered with just a few short words: Because conservatives believe that lower taxes cause economic booms.

Liberals don't have to think about it. All they need to know is what conservatives believe and they choose the opposite. /duck

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So you fucks want to give them a extended tax cut to reward them for hoarding cash.

Just what we need , them to have more cash to hoard.

I hoard my cash. Bunches and bunches of it. Newsflash for your stupid ass: It was TAXED already.

 

[finebead]

Why do Liberals Believe that Higher Taxes cause Economic Booms?

What it must be like in the Mind of a Liberal... Arguably a Marxist. I had a Discussion with noted Boulder Leftist David Sirota this morning about Taxes and Economic Growth.

His Argument was that since the Economy was good during Clinton that it had to do with Clinton's Tax Rates and that returning to those by letting the Bush Era Cuts expire, will return us to that Boom...

How can anyone be that Ignorant of Economics and be lacking in basic Common Sense?

The rates increased at the top end from 31% to 39.6% under Clinton and the 2-year DemocRAT Congress he had.

The Boom happened in spite of the tax rates and was based on demand in the Tech Sector, from businesses networking computers, to People wanting computers, gadgets and toys in their own Homes...

It was also a product of Irrational Exuberance and easy/reckless lending and LOTS of borrowing against the unrealistically, ever increasing in value housing market.

The Funny thing is that David Sirota has acknowledged this in the past.

But when it comes to tax rates, clearly Clinton's taxes were what caused it.

But here’s a little secret about that period of time… The 10-year Economic Expansion began in March of 1991 and ended in March of 2001.

Clinton didn't take Office until January of 1993 and his first Budget wasn't in place until almost 1994...

That Expansion began WELL before Clinton or the DemocRATS had ANY impact on it.

Sounds nice, but its factually WRONG. There was a recession in '91 under Bush I, and the deficit was mounting rapidly due to the failure of the Reagan tax cuts to produce the long term sustainable growth that had been promised by the "supply siders" in 1981.

What was Clinton's campaign slogan in 92, that cost Bush the election? "It's the economy, stupid!". And people swept Bush OUT of office, because he spent too much time on Desert Storm and didn't take care of the US economy, the swelling deficit, and the declining dollar. And all that bad news is why Bush I broke his 1988 campaign promise "read my lips, no new taxes" and Bush I raised taxes in 92, costing him the election for lying in 88. To Bush I's credit, we needed the tax hike to cut the deficit and rescue the dollar, and he didn't play politics, he had the stones to do the unpopular thing and the correct thing. He raised taxes to address the deficit, knowing it would probably cost him the election.

The repub gulag running the country in 2001-2006, they were all about politics and totally failed to do the right thing, and so we got a great recession starting in late 2007, and it was the longest running recession since the great depression.

What happened in 1994?... That's right, the Republican Rout, followed by a Balanced Budget FORCED by Gingrich and the REPUBLICans that included Welfare Reform, something the DemocRAT Base almost Disowned Clinton for.

Wrong. Clinton campaigned on welfare reform, before it was even a repub idea.

And I have yet to have a Liberal explain this to me… What did the Federal Government do with the extra 8% in taxes it was getting that directly impacted the Economy and created Economic Growth?

I am Certain David doesn’t have an answer for that

Here it is. With the increased tax receipts, the DEFICIT CAME DOWN. As the deficit came down, the govt. did not borrow as much money. There was less demand for loans. Money had to be put on sale to place it (banks make money by loaning it out). To put money on sale, you REDUCE INTEREST RATES CHARGED ON LOANS. Reduced interest rates made it much easier for business to collect capital to start new business or to expand one.

More important, this was NOT a manipulated process, like the fed dropping short term rates regardless of the size of the deficit (the situation now). This was a NATURAL and sustainable process, a by-product of reducing the size of the deficit to the point we produced a couple of balanced budgets late in the Clinton years.

That is how higher taxes helped the economy, because it takes the govt. out of the credit markets and has a natural suppressing effect on interest rates.

 

[Revere]

The deficits came down because Republicans controlled Clinton's purse.

 

[loosecannon]

The deficits came down because Republicans controlled Clinton's purse.

that's just a lie. Republicans have never cared about deficits.

 

[finebead]

The deficits came down because Republicans controlled Clinton's purse.

Bull. When the repubs got control of everything in 2001 - 2006, they produced the biggest annual deficit seen up to that time, in fact twice as high as any annual deficit previously seen.

It was roughly 2005, and about 600 billion deficit then. The previous record deficits were under Reagan at about 300 billion, and again under Bush I at 300 billion.

 

[Zander]

Liberals really don't care about economics. They believe that taking from those that "have", to give to those that "need" is the way we create a more "just" society. If you disagree you are a selfish asshole.

 

[loosecannon]

Liberals really don't care about economics. They believe that taking from those that "have", to give to those that "need" is the way we create a more "just" society. If you disagree you are a selfish asshole.

That's what republicans believe only in reverse.

BOTH parties have become obsessed with wealth redistribution toward their base.

The dems and repubs are simply mirror images of one another. And both parties are toxic and cancerous.