Can A President Who Hates Business....

[AmazonTania]

Truman was transitioning from a wartime economy to a peace time economy, essentially an economic recovery. Many of those men were coming home to be with their families and to start working an an actual economy. When all you have is a penny, and you find another penny lying on the street, congratulations, you've just doubled your money. He started from rock bottom. Hardly something to brag about.

The same thing happened with JFK. His presidency began during an economic downturn. Unemployment shot up as high as 7.1%. Again, the only preceded to preside under true economic growth was Eisenhower. He didn't inherent an economic downturn and he didn't preside during an asset bubble.

According to the following article from The Wall Street Journal, which I have already cited, from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there was nearly always more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There was more under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

That is too much of a pattern to be dismissed as due to reasons irrelevant to Democratic and Republican economic policies.

I don't know how you figure that there were more jobs created under Carter than Reagan. Going by my calculations, Reagan had 16 million total non farm jobs created. Carter only created 10 million. Total private, Reagan created 15 million while Carter only created 9 million.

But this all adds to my initial point, which seems to fly right by you. Reagan presided under a massive economy downturn of stagflation, triggered by the Carter years. A very aggressive policy of Fed Funds rate increases was pursued in order to curb the inflation. Interest rates climbed as high as 20%, making businesses too expensive to operate, essentially leading to massive layoffs. Unemployment peaked at 10.3%, but this was a necessary measure to curb inflation and to cure economic stagnation.

Now why am I telling you this? Well, for whatever reason, you cannot seem to grasp that whichever party creates the most jobs is essentially irrelevant. Majority of the job creation happens during economic recoveries from recessions and economic booms which have lead to financial bust. Prosperity matters far more, an in terms of this metric, both parties really don't have a very good track record on this. The only President who presided under genuine economic prosperity was Dwight Eisenhower.

 

[Friends]

Only 352 people who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid at the top marginal/effective rate. Today you have millions upon millions paying an effective rate which is much closer to that of the marginal rate.

In 1954, the Top 50% accounted for 6% of all federal tax revenue. Today, the Top 50% account for 97.21% of all federal tax revenue. The rich got away with much tax evasion during the 1950's. Even if the effective rate was higher, you are talking about an effective rate of 66% on $50.000 Today, it's an effective rate of 32.4% on $398.350.

Excuse me. Are you saying that in 1954 the top half of the income distribution paid 6 percent of federal tax revenue? I am sorry. That does not pass the laugh test.

Might seem funny, but it is the truth. Back then, there was really only one type of income. Everything you made was considered income. Today, there are many types of income, but it can essentially be broken down into just four. Of course, there wasn't an internet at the time. There were no 1040 ez's, no debit cards or bank wires. Essentially everyone paid cash. Aside from the financial environment being different today than it was in the past, it was much easier to get deductions and write-offs.

For example, let's say that you are a doctor and you annual income was $100,000 at the time. And let's say that you've owned some real estate property in a designated area of your choosing, and the value of the property depreciated by $100,000. You could take your $100,000 worth of losses against your annual income as a doctor and you would virtually pay 0 income taxes for that year.

Today, there would be no way you would be able to do this. You are only allowed to do this with losses up to $3,000 or less.

I document my assertions using credible sources. Your assertion that during the 1950's those making less than the median income were responsible for the vast majority of income tax receipts is too incredible for me to consider it.

 

[AmazonTania]

There is no longer a need for labour unions. Aside from the fact that labour unions distort market demand and encourage anti-competitive policies via the Government, work today has become increasingly individualised.

Because of stagnant and declining wages there is more of a need for labor unions than ever before.

The Scandinavian countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany have responded better to the Great Recession than the United States. They have stronger labor unions.

Trade union membership statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster

They've responded better to the recession because they haven't pursued our foolish policies. Aside from this, the labour union density in those countries have fallen just as much as the United States.

In 1970, Australia's density was 44.2%. Today, it's 18%. New Zealand's density was 58.%. Today, 20.8%. Germany's density was 32%. Today, it's 18%.

Historically, Union density in the United States has always remained lower than any of those countries, and somehow, the country still managed to perform better. The only countries which have maintained their union density are The Scandinavian countries. And you really don't want to use Scandinavia as an example of why anything works.

 

[AmazonTania]

Excuse me. Are you saying that in 1954 the top half of the income distribution paid 6 percent of federal tax revenue? I am sorry. That does not pass the laugh test.

Might seem funny, but it is the truth. Back then, there was really only one type of income. Everything you made was considered income. Today, there are many types of income, but it can essentially be broken down into just four. Of course, there wasn't an internet at the time. There were no 1040 ez's, no debit cards or bank wires. Essentially everyone paid cash. Aside from the financial environment being different today than it was in the past, it was much easier to get deductions and write-offs.

For example, let's say that you are a doctor and you annual income was $100,000 at the time. And let's say that you've owned some real estate property in a designated area of your choosing, and the value of the property depreciated by $100,000. You could take your $100,000 worth of losses against your annual income as a doctor and you would virtually pay 0 income taxes for that year.

Today, there would be no way you would be able to do this. You are only allowed to do this with losses up to $3,000 or less.

I document my assertions using credible sources. Your assertion that during the 1950's those making less than the median income were responsible for the vast majority of income tax receipts is too incredible for me to consider it.

I'm lazy. It's late. Am I am slightly drunk right now... If I am force to work by doing math and research, I can only promise that it isn't going to look good for you.

Why not just make it easier on both of us and just take whatever I am saying at face value, hm?

Edit: Actually, one of your post did help me. So if you are nice to me, I may give you the information that you want.

 

[AmazonTania]

Kennedy actually decreased taxes to the marginal rate of 75%. At least I think that's what happened.

From 1964 to 1965 the top tax rate declined from 91.0 percent to 70.0 percent. That of course was after the death of President Kennedy.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

However, Republicans like to claim that reducing the top tax rate generated more tax revenue. OK, let's look at that assertion.

In 1964 income tax receipts were $48,697 million. In 1965 they increased to $48,792 million. In other words, they increased by $95 million.

However, in 1963 when the top tax rate was still 91 percent income tax receipts were $47,588 million. From 1963 to 1964 when the top tax rate remained the same income tax receipts increased by $1,104.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

These figures are not adjusted for inflation. The complex truth is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of inflation and economic growth. They nearly always increase more when the top tax rate is not reduced, and still more when it is raised.

For example, from 1943 to 1944 the top tax rate increased from 88.0 percent to 94.0 percent. Income tax receipts increased from $6,505 million to $19,705 million. This represented an increase of $13,200 million.

My figures for tax receipts come ultimately from the Office of Management and Budget. Keep in mind again that they are not adjusted for inflation.

The truth is rather simple, although Republicans have tried to obfuscate it: raising taxes results in higher tax revenue.

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down as a percentage of gross domestic product. It was only when Ronald Ronald promoted and acted on the dishonest claim that cutting taxes yields more tax revenue than keep taxes constant or raising them that the national debt began to increase.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Republicans are using the increase in the national debt that is the result of their fraudulent economic policies in an effort to cut popular middle class entitlements. Fortunately, it is not working. For several years public opinion polls indicate popular support for raising taxes on the rich and widespread opposition for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy...608,d.dmQ&fp=8d786327089c7a38&biw=640&bih=559

Maybe it's the alcohol, but I really don't get what you are trying to say here...

 

[Friends]

Kennedy actually decreased taxes to the marginal rate of 75%. At least I think that's what happened.

From 1964 to 1965 the top tax rate declined from 91.0 percent to 70.0 percent. That of course was after the death of President Kennedy.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

However, Republicans like to claim that reducing the top tax rate generated more tax revenue. OK, let's look at that assertion.

In 1964 income tax receipts were $48,697 million. In 1965 they increased to $48,792 million. In other words, they increased by $95 million.

However, in 1963 when the top tax rate was still 91 percent income tax receipts were $47,588 million. From 1963 to 1964 when the top tax rate remained the same income tax receipts increased by $1,104.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

These figures are not adjusted for inflation. The complex truth is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of inflation and economic growth. They nearly always increase more when the top tax rate is not reduced, and still more when it is raised.

For example, from 1943 to 1944 the top tax rate increased from 88.0 percent to 94.0 percent. Income tax receipts increased from $6,505 million to $19,705 million. This represented an increase of $13,200 million.

My figures for tax receipts come ultimately from the Office of Management and Budget. Keep in mind again that they are not adjusted for inflation.

The truth is rather simple, although Republicans have tried to obfuscate it: raising taxes results in higher tax revenue.

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down as a percentage of gross domestic product. It was only when Ronald Ronald promoted and acted on the dishonest claim that cutting taxes yields more tax revenue than keep taxes constant or raising them that the national debt began to increase.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Republicans are using the increase in the national debt that is the result of their fraudulent economic policies in an effort to cut popular middle class entitlements. Fortunately, it is not working. For several years public opinion polls indicate popular support for raising taxes on the rich and widespread opposition for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy...608,d.dmQ&fp=8d786327089c7a38&biw=640&bih=559

Maybe it's the alcohol, but I really don't get what you are trying to say here...

Sleep it off. Take Ibuprofen when you wake up. When the hangover wears off read my comment slowly out loud several times until you are aware of what is meant by every syllable. If you still have difficulty I will try to simplify my concepts.

 

[Dot Com]

Why not just make it easier on both of us and just take whatever I am saying at face value, hm?

thats not how things work on serious msg boards How many boards have you been on or how much time on discussion boards

 

[AmazonTania]

Why not just make it easier on both of us and just take whatever I am saying at face value, hm?

thats not how things work on serious msg boards How many boards have you been on or how much time on discussion boards

Aside from the fact that this really isn't a serious message board, my social life and steadily growing career prevents me from studying the ways of forum etiquette.

I really don't care if anyone does or doesn't verify what he or she says. As long as the other person knows that it isn't a blatant lie. If I find a statement that is incorrect, I will just correct someone on it.

Otherwise, my track record should be sufficient enough.

 

[AmazonTania]

Sleep it off. Take Ibuprofen when you wake up. When the hangover wears off read my comment slowly out loud several times until you are aware of what is meant by every syllable. If you still have difficulty I will try to simplify my concepts.

I'm sober. I've read it over. It still doesn't make much sense, as your points are all over the place. Maybe I should have actually drunk more so it would have made more sense to me. Nonetheless, I will still attempt to dissect what you are saying.

From 1964 to 1965 the top tax rate declined from 91.0 percent to 70.0 percent. That of course was after the death of President Kennedy.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

Yes. John F. Kennedy was an advocated for lower taxes and brought up a plan for tax reduction during his final State of the Union Address, but Kennedy initially wanted a rate lower than the rate it was changed to in 1964.

However, Republicans like to claim that reducing the top tax rate generated more tax revenue. OK, let's look at that assertion.

In 1964 income tax receipts were $48,697 million. In 1965 they increased to $48,792 million. In other words, they increased by $95 million.

However, in 1963 when the top tax rate was still 91 percent income tax receipts were $47,588 million. From 1963 to 1964 when the top tax rate remained the same income tax receipts increased by $1,104.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

These figures are not adjusted for inflation. The complex truth is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of inflation and economic growth. They nearly always increase more when the top tax rate is not reduced, and still more when it is raised.

For example, from 1943 to 1944 the top tax rate increased from 88.0 percent to 94.0 percent. Income tax receipts increased from $6,505 million to $19,705 million. This represented an increase of $13,200 million.

I'll try to be nice:

1. Your economic understanding is left to be desired. Y/Y inflation has little to do, or in most cases, nothing to do with how much the tax revenue increases. You only adjust something for inflation if you are using two historical points which are decade or more apart. Y/Y inflation 1963 - 1964 was only 1.2%. Not really enough to grow the revenue in a way that matters inflation wise.

2. Your historical understanding is really not very good, either. The large increase in tax revenue had nothing to do with the fact that the marginal tax rate increase, but everything to do with the fact that the withholding tax was introduced that year, as a part of The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943. This tax was meant to be a temporary tax, but of course, it wasn't temporary, now was it?

Increasing the rates had nothing to do with the increase in revenue. All that happened was that the Government found new sources of revenue to tax.

My figures for tax receipts come ultimately from the Office of Management and Budget. Keep in mind again that they are not adjusted for inflation.

The truth is rather simple, although Republicans have tried to obfuscate it: raising taxes results in higher tax revenue.

Quite the opposite, although we have learned the real truth: poor understanding of history will often lead to 'correlation equals causation' moments.

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down as a percentage of gross domestic product. It was only when Ronald Ronald promoted and acted on the dishonest claim that cutting taxes yields more tax revenue than keep taxes constant or raising them that the national debt began to increase.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No...The national debt was never paid down. The national debt increased every year starting from 1951. I'm really not sure you understand what Debt to GDP means.

Now Republicans are using the increase in the national debt that is the result of their fraudulent economic policies in an effort to cut popular middle class entitlements. Fortunately, it is not working. For several years public opinion polls indicate popular support for raising taxes on the rich and widespread opposition for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy...608,d.dmQ&fp=8d786327089c7a38&biw=640&bih=559

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything in the slightest.

 

[Dot Com]

still no links to prove your claims? You seem like a nice enough person but no one is going to take you seriously. without links, you're basically just putting-out opinions. You seem to be a nice enough person but thems the rules of most all msg boards, you make a claim= you back it up.

 

[AmazonTania]

And we increasingly see how useless this legacy is. The rich does everything in their power to avoid taxation. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and these corporations will not hire Americans. They're shifting their resources in countries which are more business friendly. Coca-Cola has already said China is more business friendly than America. Apple would rather go into debt than repatriate $41 billion dollars worth of profits.

Then why is it that when labor unions were stronger and when the top tax rate was higher most Americans got pay raises every year that beat inflation?

Because there was no inflation... CPI only averaged 1.5% annual at best. Granted, I do not believe the CPI is an accurate metric of inflation, but only in current history. We are talking about the mid-20th century.

The reason that corporations increasingly move production to low wage countries is because the North American Free Trade Agreement and similar legislation has made it possible for them to import that production without paying tariffs. I supported NAFTA at the time, but Ross Perot's arguments have been proven to be valid.

NAFTA only involves North America, and most corporations aren't moving to Mexico or Canada.

The reason corporations are not hiring is because people are not buying.

I'm going to assume you ignored my statement regarding corporate profits being at record highs. The alternative, being your comprehension, seems like a rude enough analysis.

The solution is the same one that worked during the New Deal: tax the rich heavily; strengthen labor unions; raise the minimum wage. These policies created better consumers. As they bought more employers in the private sector hired more to produce and sell what was bought.

If you want to spend another two decades experience that, be my guess. I'll even subsidies this idea, because I want you to prove how much you're wrong that much.

 

[AmazonTania]

still no links to prove your claims? No one is going to take you seriously. without links, you're basically just putting-out opinions. You seem to be a nice enough person but thems the rules of most all msg boards, you make a claim= you back it up.

What would you like to see?

 

[Dot Com]

still no links to prove your claims? No one is going to take you seriously. without links, you're basically just putting-out opinions. You seem to be a nice enough person but thems the rules of most all msg boards, you make a claim= you back it up.

What would you like to see?

well the poster you were refuting went to the trouble to include 4 links so... You can do whatever you want. I'm just another user.

 

[AmazonTania]

still no links to prove your claims? No one is going to take you seriously. without links, you're basically just putting-out opinions. You seem to be a nice enough person but thems the rules of most all msg boards, you make a claim= you back it up.

What would you like to see?

well the poster you were refuting went to the trouble to include 4 links so... You can do whatever you want. I'm just another user.

A valiant effort, but he is still wrong. Most of the post were based on a general misconception. I just corrected him. Most of what I say is generally easy to search. Doesn't require much research skills.

The national debt really did grow every year. It decreased some during Truman's first term. After that, it increased again and it hasn't decreased since.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

And the withholding tax really was enacted in 1943, leading to the big increase Friends believes was due to the income tax hike.

Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for historical inflation, that's pretty easy to look up.

But having to search for everything I say becomes tedious. Those are the only two claims I have address in that response. If he ever decides to address my other responses, I will have data to support those claims as well.

 

[Billo_Really]

How can anyone say Obama is anti-business, when corporations are enjoying their best years of corporate life.

13 Mindblowing Facts About America's Tax-Dodging Corporations

1. We're told we can't "afford" full Social Security benefits, even though closing corporate tax-haven loopholes would pay for Obama's "chained CPI" benefit cut more than ten times over!

2. Corporate tax rates are near their 60-year low, even though profits are at a 60-year high!

3. Wells Fargo got $8 billion in tax breaks, even as executives at its subsidiary Wachovia avoided indictment for laundering money for the Mexican drug cartels!

4. Some other huge corporations paid less than nothing, too.

Pepco Holdings (-57.6 percent tax rate)
General Electric (-45.3 percent)
DuPont (-3.4 percent)
Verizon (-2.9 percent)
Boeing (-1.8 percent)
Honeywell (-0.7 percent)​

5. The amount of money US corporations are holding offshoreis an estimated 1.6 trillion dollars!

6. One building in the Cayman Islands is the official location of 18,857 corporations!

7. Conservatives complain about the "official" corporate tax rate in this country, but corporations actually pay roughly one-third of the official rate in actual taxes.

The official, or "statutory," corporate tax rate is 35 percent. But the actual rate paid by American corporations is only 12 percent, less than that paid by many middle-class Americans.​

8. Corporations used to pay 30 percent of Federal taxes, and now they pay less than 7 percent!

That's because the corporate tax rate has plunged since Dwight D. Eisenhower was President and is now the lowest it's been in modern history.​

9. Big corporations paid $216 million to Congress and got $223 billion in tax breaks!

11. Bank of America committed foreclosure fraud, was bailed out by the government, and then paid no taxes on $4.4 billion in profit!

12. What they call "tax reform" would actually prevent our elected representatives from giving businesses financial incentives to improve our lives!

13. Despite their greed, mismanagement, and freeloading, tax-dodging corporations are using shell organizations like "Fix the Debt" and "the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" to tell ordinary Americans they have to sacrifice even more to preserve corporate wealth!

We need to close the loopholes, stop giving tax breaks to major corporations, raise the capital gains and stock dividend tax to 35%, make it illegal for anyone from becoming a lobbiest for at least 10 years after leaving public office and finally, start enforcing anti-trust laws again.

 

[Dot Com]

What would you like to see?

well the poster you were refuting went to the trouble to include 4 links so... You can do whatever you want. I'm just another user.

A valiant effort, but he is still wrong. Most of the post were based on a general misconception. I just corrected him. Most of what I say is generally easy to search. Doesn't require much research skills.

The national debt really did grow every year. It decreased some during Truman's first term. After that, it increased again and it hasn't decreased since.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

And the withholding tax really was enacted in 1943, leading to the big increase Friends believes was due to the income tax hike.

Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But having to search for everything I say becomes tedious.

tedious UNLESS you want to win debates. Look at this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/301641-in-the-interest-of-integrity.html#post7488299

You start out w/ sources and it lets everyone involved know that what you are proposing is verifiable. Will make them think 2X before responding.

 

[Dot Com]

The wealthy have seldom done better. I thought that what repubs wanted, funneling wealth to the top

 

[Billo_Really]

The wealthy have seldom done better. I thought that what repubs wanted, funneling wealth to the top

Re-distribution of wealth is a reality.

But it's going "up", not down.

 

[AmazonTania]

well the poster you were refuting went to the trouble to include 4 links so... You can do whatever you want. I'm just another user.

A valiant effort, but he is still wrong. Most of the post were based on a general misconception. I just corrected him. Most of what I say is generally easy to search. Doesn't require much research skills.

The national debt really did grow every year. It decreased some during Truman's first term. After that, it increased again and it hasn't decreased since.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

And the withholding tax really was enacted in 1943, leading to the big increase Friends believes was due to the income tax hike.

Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But having to search for everything I say becomes tedious.

tedious UNLESS you want to win debates. Look at this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/301641-in-the-interest-of-integrity.html#post7488299

You start out w/ sources and it lets everyone involved know that what you are proposing is verifiable. Will make them think 2X before responding.

People on this forum do not think before responding, regardless of what I say. But it is still fun to watch people hang themselves with their own rope.

If I really need to, I do provide data and sources. But the occasion hardly arises.

 

[Billo_Really]

People on this forum do not think before responding, regardless of what I say. But it is still fun to watch people hang themselves with their own rope.

If I really need to, I do provide data and sources. But the occasion hardly arises.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide corroborating evidence to back up that claim. Once you do, the burden of proof shifts to anyone who objects to that claim, to provide contrary evidence in order to show their objection is not frivolous and has merit.

But until you do, proof lies with you.