Can A President Who Hates Business....

[Dot Com]

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.

^ that. ESPECIALLY when one refutes one who HAS supplied sources for their argument.

I, as a general rule, provide links when I start a thread just to set the bar

 

[Friends]

I'm sober. I've read it over. It still doesn't make much sense, as your points are all over the place.

You bring to mind an insight of Upton Sinclair, “If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

Not only was there usually more job creation per year under Democrat presidents from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush, but there was nearly always more economic growth under Democratic presidents from 1921 to 2000.

A natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. This tendency was obvious under the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes that were adopted by the Roosevelt administration raised taxes on those at the top and used the money to increase government spending and employment. As ordinary Americans earned more they spent more. Employers in the private sector hired more people to produce and sell what was consumed.

Since Keynesian economic policies have been scaled back by Republican administrations this natural tendency of capitalism is once again becoming apparent. While profits increase, incomes for most Americans decline, and unemployment remains high.

There have been periods of growing inequality before, particularly during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the 1920's. Nevertheless, most Americans advanced somewhat, so it was politically sustainable for awhile.

We have never before experienced a sustained period when the rich got richer while the median income adjusted for inflation or deflation declined. A genuine conservative, that is to say one who desires to conserve a healthy society, should view this with alarm.

Up to now the Republican Party has maintained dominance by appealing to the cultural and racial anxieties of lower income whites. As the percentage of the white population declines those anxieties are likely to increase, but the share of the electorate in which they increase will decrease. Orientals and Jews are usually immune to Republican social appeals. Although they usually earn more money than white Gentiles they remain Democratic constituencies.

 

[AmazonTania]

I'm sober. I've read it over. It still doesn't make much sense, as your points are all over the place.

You bring to mind an insight of Upton Sinclair, “If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

You documented it, but you are thoroughly wrong. All you have done was made a very bad correlation. And I can only assume that because you have nothing to refute my debunking of your 'thorough documentation,' other than repeating the same rhetoric, I can only assume that you don't really have much else to offer.

You are free to keep repeating the same mantra until it makes you feel better, if you wish. I'm sure if you say it enough time, I might start believing it. But that doesn't change the historical facts.

Not only was there usually more job creation per year under Democrat presidents from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush, but there was nearly always more economic growth under Democratic presidents from 1921 to 2000.

You refuse to understand that Democratic presidents have created more jobs simply because Democrat president have presided under more recessions/recoveries. If your economy lose jobs, under an economic recovery you will continue to create more jobs at a faster rate, as oppose to if your economy is already prospering.

When economic production is at it's peak during the business cycle, you will have less unemployment. To the contrary when economic output falls, unemployment will rise. If your unemployment is relatively high, you will create more jobs. It's that simple.

The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes that were adopted by the Roosevelt administration raised taxes on those at the top and used the money to increase government spending and employment. As ordinary Americans earned more they spent more. Employers in the private sector hired more people to produce and sell what was consumed.

That's a nice theory, but that isn't what happened at all. I guess you never really learned much about the bread lines and mass starvation during this time period in this in your abyss of rhetoric you call, 'history.'

Since Keynesian economic policies have been scaled back by Republican administrations this natural tendency of capitalism is once again becoming apparent. While profits increase, incomes for most Americans decline, and unemployment remains high.

<snip.

More incoherent ramblings which generally has no meaning. What is your point, exactly?

 

[Dot Com]

I'm sober. I've read it over. It still doesn't make much sense, as your points are all over the place.

You bring to mind an insight of Upton Sinclair, &#8220;If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.&#8221;

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

Not only was there usually more job creation per year under Democrat presidents from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush, but there was nearly always more economic growth under Democratic presidents from 1921 to 2000.

A natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. This tendency was obvious under the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes that were adopted by the Roosevelt administration raised taxes on those at the top and used the money to increase government spending and employment. As ordinary Americans earned more they spent more. Employers in the private sector hired more people to produce and sell what was consumed.

Since Keynesian economic policies have been scaled back by Republican administrations this natural tendency of capitalism is once again becoming apparent. While profits increase, incomes for most Americans decline, and unemployment remains high.

There have been periods of growing inequality before, particularly during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the 1920's. Nevertheless, most Americans advanced somewhat, so it was politically sustainable for awhile.

We have never before experienced a sustained period when the rich got richer while the median income adjusted for inflation or deflation declined. A genuine conservative, that is to say one who desires to conserve a healthy society, should view this with alarm.

Up to now the Republican Party has maintained dominance by appealing to the cultural and racial anxieties of lower income whites. As the percentage of the white population declines those anxieties are likely to increase, but the share of the electorate in which they increase will decrease. Orientals and Jews are usually immune to Republican social appeals. Although they usually earn more money than white Gentiles they remain Democratic constituencies.

reminds me of this:

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his 1980 campaign speeches, Reagan presented his economic proposals as a return to the free enterprise principles that had been in favor before the Great Depression. At the same time he attracted a following from the supply-side economics movement, which formed in opposition to Keynesian demand-stimulus economics. This movement produced some of the strongest supporters for Reagan's policies during his term in office.

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although the term "supply-side economics" may have been coined later, the idea was experimented with in the 1920s. Income tax rates were cut several times in the early 20s, in total cutting the average tax rate by less than half. Although those responsible for the cuts had claimed the cuts would increase tax revenue, this did not occur. Income tax revenue did not reach even close to 1920 levels until tax rates were returned to 1920 levels in 1941

so lowering taxes does not automatically increase revenue.

 

[AmazonTania]

When FDR raised the top marginal tax rate from 88% - 94% in 1944, income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 9.4%.

When Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate from 60% - 50% in 1982, income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 9.2%.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

What exactly does this mean? Absolutely nothing... It only shows how people with no conceptual understanding of finance or history can just piece together any bit of history which makes sense to them. Reagan cut taxes. FDR raised taxes. Both within one year period, and both president's collected the same income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.

Gee, this source looks familiar. Who used this?

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

If you look deeper, you'll find that FDR did plenty of tax hiking. FDR hiked taxes in 1936, 1941 and 1944, and has averaged an income tax revenue to GDP ratio of 2.4%. 3.5% if you count the final 8 years of his presidency.

Contrary, Reagan lowered rates and kept lowering them. Once in 1982, another tax cut in 1987 and again in his final year in 1988. This averaged an income tax revenue to GDP ratio of 8.4%

So when are we going to start suggesting increasing tax revenue doesn't necessarily increase revenue? Of course, this will never be considered. Because talking points prevail, and not an accurate understanding of history or economics.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the only real reason why FDR even managed to obtain a high increase in revenue was because the Withholding Tax was passed in 1943. Withholding Taxes are extracted from you income by your employer. It is accounted for and accumulated right along with the individual tax revenue. This wasn't a tax hike, but a separate new tax entirely. Without this tax, FDR would have never saw 5.5% income tax revenue to GDP.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

.

Today top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax at 39% top rate, under Reagan they paid 21% of all income tax revenue at 50-70% top rate. Sorry

And of course this does not even mention how absurd it is to take investment capital from our most productive citizens. When you tax new ventures you get fewer new ventures like Apple Google HP Intel Amazon, etc etc.

 

[Friends]

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

.

Today top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax at 39% top rate, under Reagan they paid 21% of all income tax revenue at 50-70% top rate. Sorry

And of course this does not even mention how absurd it is to take investment capital from our most productive citizens. When you tax new ventures you get fewer new ventures like Apple Google HP Intel Amazon, etc etc.

the top 1% of Americans own 42% of the financial wealth in this country. The top 5%, meanwhile, own nearly 70%...

The aggregate tax rate for the top 1% is lower than for the next 9%—and not much higher than it is for pretty much everyone else.
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... - Business Insider

 

[PoliticalChic]

My point, which I have documented thoroughly, is that raising the top tax rate generates much more tax revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

.

Today top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax at 39% top rate, under Reagan they paid 21% of all income tax revenue at 50-70% top rate. Sorry

And of course this does not even mention how absurd it is to take investment capital from our most productive citizens. When you tax new ventures you get fewer new ventures like Apple Google HP Intel Amazon, etc etc.

the top 1% of Americans own 42% of the financial wealth in this country. The top 5%, meanwhile, own nearly 70%...

The aggregate tax rate for the top 1% is lower than for the next 9%—and not much higher than it is for pretty much everyone else.
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... - Business Insider

I saw the word 'earners' in the article....


....did I miss the words 'stole' or 'theft'?


If not......what's your beef?