Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dad2three]

Yes, average is less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. oF COURSE WHY SHOULD WE EXPECT THE 'JOB CREATORS' (TOP 1%) MAKING A min OF $388,900+ A FAMILY, TO PAY A LARGER TAX BURDEN

62,000,000+ FAMILIES, IS LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVG (MAX ANY MAKE IS $34,800 A YEAR) BUBBA

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

Yes, average is less than $15,000 PER FAMILY.

Realize the flaw in your claim yet?

No Bubba, TRY REAL MATH Not 'con' math

Bottom half of US (who made enough to even file taxes) made less than $15,000 PER FAMILY

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

You said the bottom half make less than $15,000.
Do you have a link that proves that?
Or do we have to use your link that proves you're wrong?

Do the math dummy. ANTI Tax Foundation proves I'm CORRECT

Do the math dummy. ANTI Tax Foundation proves I'm CORRECT

You think your link shows the bottom half of tax filers makes less than $15,000 per family?
Wow, you are dumb.

Says the K/K/Klown who uses conservative 'math'

If you are in the bottom 50% of Americans who earn less than $33,048 a year,


AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


In 2010, 50 percent of Americans had 1.1 percent of the total net worth

 

[Dad2three]

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT. LOL

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tige

“The promotion of the myth that low taxes created the Irish economic ‘miracle’ is part of a wider, conservative political agenda which, in essence, seeks to limit the role
of the state and maintain the benefits reaped by a small minority, during the Celtic Tiger years. For them, Ireland is a low-tax economy and self-interest dictates that it
should remain so.”

http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/tax_cuts_did_not_create_celtic_tiger.pdf

For nearly two decades, Ireland has been hailed as an example to the rest of the world for what can be achieved by a small country in terms of economic growth. The prosperity enjoyed by the “Celtic Tiger,” it was claimed, benefited the Irish population as a whole.


...The Celtic Tiger changed over time, mostly due to foreign companies looking toward Eastern Europe for even cheaper labor. When foreign investment started to dry up, Ireland’s economic profile shifted. Joining the Eurozone in 2002, Ireland was awash in money, as low interest rates in Europe made easy credit available. This had a twofold effect.


On the other, a “housing bubble” emerged that became the driving force of the Irish economy. This asset-price bubble became an important source of employment, since the construction, real estate, and mortgage broker industries exploded. It was estimated that the housing boom was responsible for one-fifth of all the jobs on the island, and state revenues relied heavily on property taxes.

IRELAND Slaying the Celtic Tiger Solidarity

In September 2008, Ireland became the first eurozone country to officially enter recession

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%; it then slowed to between 4.4 and 6.5% from 2001 to 2007

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

During that period, the Irish GDP per capita rose dramatically to equal, then eventually surpass, that of all but one state in Western Europe

Before the tax cuts, Ireland was one of the poorer western EU members, after, their GDP per capita was higher than all but Germany. I guess it was just a coincidence? LOL!

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


OOPS

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

How could the economy boom with a high tax rate before they phased in? That's like somehow claiming Reagan with a top rate of 50% his first six years, tax cuts were responsible for his 1980's economy? Oh wait, you K/K/Kl;owns claim that right? lol

How could the economy boom with a high tax rate before they phased in?

Do you know the meaning of "phased in"? LOL!

24%-34%??? LOL

Kinda defeats your posit right?

 

[Dad2three]

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT. LOL

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tige

“The promotion of the myth that low taxes created the Irish economic ‘miracle’ is part of a wider, conservative political agenda which, in essence, seeks to limit the role
of the state and maintain the benefits reaped by a small minority, during the Celtic Tiger years. For them, Ireland is a low-tax economy and self-interest dictates that it
should remain so.”

http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/tax_cuts_did_not_create_celtic_tiger.pdf

For nearly two decades, Ireland has been hailed as an example to the rest of the world for what can be achieved by a small country in terms of economic growth. The prosperity enjoyed by the “Celtic Tiger,” it was claimed, benefited the Irish population as a whole.


...The Celtic Tiger changed over time, mostly due to foreign companies looking toward Eastern Europe for even cheaper labor. When foreign investment started to dry up, Ireland’s economic profile shifted. Joining the Eurozone in 2002, Ireland was awash in money, as low interest rates in Europe made easy credit available. This had a twofold effect.


On the other, a “housing bubble” emerged that became the driving force of the Irish economy. This asset-price bubble became an important source of employment, since the construction, real estate, and mortgage broker industries exploded. It was estimated that the housing boom was responsible for one-fifth of all the jobs on the island, and state revenues relied heavily on property taxes.

IRELAND Slaying the Celtic Tiger Solidarity

In September 2008, Ireland became the first eurozone country to officially enter recession

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%; it then slowed to between 4.4 and 6.5% from 2001 to 2007

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

During that period, the Irish GDP per capita rose dramatically to equal, then eventually surpass, that of all but one state in Western Europe

Before the tax cuts, Ireland was one of the poorer western EU members, after, their GDP per capita was higher than all but Germany. I guess it was just a coincidence? LOL!

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


OOPS

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

lol

OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

Is 36% too high? Tell Obama.

Weird, Obama wants to lower to 28% and close loopholes (using money to rebuild infrastructure) , instead the GOP holds onto the 35% and the EFFECTIVE rates, the ones Corps actually pay, is 12%. But isn't it up to Congress?

Thanks for agreeing having a 36% Corp tax rate in Ireland DIDN'T stop their growth though!

 

[Dad2three]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

Liberals claim that government interference helps the economy. Heck, it worked so well for Detroit that they want those policies for the entire country.

Liberals claim they can artificially raise some people by oppressing achievers.

Too many poor people have put their trust in liberal politicians and look where it's gotten them in the last 60 years.

Right now they are putting lots of new regulations on taxi services in DC because they think it will make them more competitive. Liberals know nothing about running companies and competing in the free market. They think they can force outcomes when all they do is stifle creativity and real competition.

The left says they do understand how things work, so that would make their actions even more sinister. It means they do understand how capitalism works and they simply don't like it. You would have to have some understanding of how things work in order to manipulate it to the point where it collapses.

Either they are clueless about the economy or they are deliberately trying to break us. Which is it, liberals?

DC Taxicabs Forced to Follow Another Rule

lol, Yeah, liberals were in charge in Detroit, AND libs chose 'free trade' and lowering tax rates for the 'job creators', even for shipping jobs offshore right? NOT Conservative policy that rewards it right? I mean conservative policies on a national level couldn't POSSIBLY hurt the nations rust belt!

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
   
   
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
   
   American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
   

'Job creators' are winning with the lowest effective tax rates in memory, ON HUGE GAINS OF THE PIE!!!


BUT THEY MUST NEED MORE 'INCENTIVES' RIGHT?

 

[Dragonlady]

Toddster asked for other reasons for the Celtic Tiger growth other than tax cuts. Being a true conservative with his blinders firmly in place, he can't see anything other than low corporate tax rates.

First off, the EU invested 17 Billion Euros in Ireland's infrastructure from 1973 forward. The money was spent on education of the population, and infrastructure - thing the US resists investing in. Education made the work force more attractive to high tech firms. Improved infrastructure is essential to modern business. I say this because US infrastructure is crumbling and conservatives resist spending the money to upgrade and improve it

Membership in the EU opened up new trading markets for Irish goods. Previously, Great Britain had been Irelands largest trading partner. Wages in Ireland were lower than any other major EU country, and Irish workers speak English, which for American based companies, made communication easier.

Last but certainly not least, in the 1990's, Ireland was giving all sorts of cheap capital loans and grants, and tax incentives to companies to relocate to Ireland. Canada tried this for a while, but found that the corporations don't stay, and often don't stay long enough for the government to recoup their investment in luring them to Canada in the first place. Some other jurisdiction makes them a better offer and they leave. This sounds like a good part of why so many of these companies left. Cheaper labour elsewhere.

So to say that lowering the corporation tax rate is the sole reason for Ireland's success is to be willfully blind to the overall picture. Investment in infrastructure, and education, which Republicans have staunchly resisted, created an attractive environment for business. Relocation grants and tax breaks, sweetened the pot.

Notice how I can discuss valid reasons for the Celtic Tiger phenomenon without once mentioning the reduction of the overall corporate tax rate.

 

[Dad2three]

I read some here proselytizing for demand-side economics, and others bemoaning corporate tax breaks.

These positions, simply, reveal their ignorance about how our economic system works. They are more interested in planting an ego-driven stake in the ground than in determining the correct answers. One at a time ....

1) Demand-side economics ... a slavish commitment to demand-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of demand-side economics is ...

"Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending." What Is Demand-Side Economics with pictures

While that sounds good, nobody notices the dichotomy of "lower taxes on middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.". Essentially, in order to accomplish its goals, the government must lower taxes on the "middle and working class", and increase taxes on the non-"middle and working class". In theory, this allows the government to assume more control of the economy, take operating capital from the rich, and lower the tax burden on the middle class which, in turn, gives them more money to spend. In practice, however, demand-side economics increases the price of items, driving the cost of living up.

By definition, the price increase must exceed the tax break. Thus, while there is a temporary increase in standard of living, it is quickly devoured by the price increases. In the end, the poor and middle class are harmed by the price increases more than the tax break can ever provide. The resultant need to expend a larger percentage of their income in order to maintain their lifestyle - at whatever level - means there is less money for investment and research, thus driving the cost of production even higher. Add THAT ripple to the price increase, and the whole economy begins to slide backward.

2) Supply-side economics - a slavish commitment to supply-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of supply-side economics is ...

"Supply-side economics is one expression of macroeconomics that focuses on the stimulation of economic growth by encouraging greater production of goods and services. Essentially, this removes the issue of demand from the economic task, as the concept of supply-side economics takes the stand that demand will follow if there are goods available for purchase. Often, proponents of this approach will use the extension of incentives to stimulate interest or demand for the goods and services produced.


One of the more common incentives used with a supply-side economics model is to provide tax breaks. Lowering the taxes owed by manufacturers of finished goods is thought to make it practical for producers to create more products. In turn, more products mean more choices for consumers, who will respond accordingly.

Along with a reduction in taxes for the producer, supply-side economics also sometimes takes the form of lowering personal income taxes as they relate to the consumer. With this application of the method, consumers have more disposable income, since the amount of income tax that is deducted from gross pay is reduced. With more money in their pockets, consumers are more likely to feel good about the general state of the economy. This increase confidence leads to additional purchases, which in turn justifies the increased production of manufacturers." What is Supply-Side Economics with picture

The goal of supply-side economics is to increase demand by decreasing the price. This is done by creating a greater supply, thru lowered production costs (most often by cutting taxes), which in turn, will drive the price down thru competition. This will make the current earned dollar more efficient.

It must be remembered that supply and demand are the opposite sides of the economic cycle. The question becomes which should be stimulated in order to produce the desired effect. Demand-side stimulation provides temporary relief focused on raising the production through increased demand, which drives the item price up. Supply-side stimulation provides longer term relief, though still temporary, through increased demand by increased production, which lowers the price.

Which one is right? The answer is both - depending on the economic condition. The problem we have today is that we have political entities that are married to a single answer - and neither of them are right.

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, alleviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

As usual, you take what COULD be a valid position, and lead it all the way to absurd. In short, you are patently wrong ... and your last statement is laughably wrong.

Good rebuttal, so detailed and really not to lengthy on where ANY of my posits were wrong, and WHY? lol

 

[Dad2three]

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

A Progressive tax system is EXACTLY what you don't want ... it is the root of our problem.

Sure, THAT'S been the problem, PROGRESSIVE TAXATION *SHAKING HEAD*

Believe it or not, after everything that has happened regarding the Wall St. Banking fiasco, the Republican Party is calling for less regulations for Wall St. Banks What! Yes, its true. The Republican Party wants to deregulate Wall St. Banks even more then they already are. Mind boggling isn't it. I guess its no more mind boggling then the Republican Party still offering up Trickle Down Economics as the answer to joblessness and low wages. 30+ years of Trickle Down Economics that have proven to be a complete disaster for Middle Class America, and even worse for Americans on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, and the Republican Party has the audacity to presume that Americans are so stupid as to keep buying into the worst economic policy ideology since the days of the Robber Barron's, when the rich got obscenely richer, and the poor got obscenely poorer.



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Again, overstatement for effect only demonstrates your lack of knowledge. Be ashamed ... be very ashamed.

ANOTHER rebuttal shock full of reasons why, and detailed analysis to back it up? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The only people who are more stupid than Republicans are the people who vote for them.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Billy000, If He Posted Honestly and Intelligently, would have made the thread headline read as follows:

Liberal Democratics have a ZERO understanding of economics. They should have no place in our government.

Of course, wee willie has no willingness (and perhaps no ability) to post honestly and intelligently. So the correct thread headline eludes him.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The only people who are more stupid than Republicans are the people who vote for them.

Except for Obumbler and all the looney tune goofball deluded schmucks who voted for Obumbler and the vermin liberal Dumbocraps, of course.

 

[Dragonlady]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

 

[Dad2three]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

"How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you figure out who's hitting you?" - President Harry Truman

The 2 words Democrats need to say over and over again is 'economic activity'. Give a rich person $1,000 and they will not put it back into the economy. Give the working poor $1,000 and they will put every single penny back into the economy.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who can't follow the context of the posts

No, the wealthy don't tend to smoke or drink *shaking head*

You are a fool! Poor people spent a higher percentage of their income on alcohol tobacco and gasoline.
They tend to drink more, though maybe cheaper booze, but they consume in larger quantities. On the federal and state level, alcohol is taxed on the proof gallon before it's poured in a glass and only on cost after it's poured.
If you are surviving on $15,000/year and smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, you are spending 15% (in Alabama but over 22% in Connecticut) of your income on tobacco. A person with the same habit making $200,000 is spending 1%.
Same for gasoline. If you're living in the Liberal Mecca of California, you're paying 90 cents/gallon in taxes. A daily commute of 40 miles total working 5 days a week will cost you $468/year in fuel tax or 3% of your income. that's 0.2% for the $200,000/year guy.

Some Liberal Mecca huh?

at one time this place was a utopia.....and im sure there are millions who would agree with me....but all those fuckers from around the Country over the last 30 years who came here and milked this place dry .....well guess where many of them are now going?....

When was this place a utopia, and what was it like? Was this place a utopia for all, for some or a few?

back in the 60's and 70's then the worms from the other states started coming in here for a piece of the pie.....i went to junior college for 2 years and only had to buy my books....now try that.....i was able to quit a job if i did not like it.....walk down the street and get hired on at another place on the spot.....try that now.....i was renting a 2 bedroom place for 300 hundred bucks a month in a nice neighborhood....find that now.....gas was so cheap i could fill my tank on 10 bucks.....and just the lifestyle was nice and casual....now?.....and everytime i left the State and traveled elsewhere....everyone i met when they found out i was from Ca......thats where they wanted to be....even when i was in Canada...try that now see what you get.....

You mean where Ronnie Reagan started his war on education and the middle class? Before him if you were in the top 12% of the state, you received a FREE UC education, everyone else had a FREE JC experience. Of course he had to cut taxes for the 'job creators' to do this

does not change what i said......things were pretty nice down her during that time......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%; it then slowed to between 4.4 and 6.5% from 2001 to 2007

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

During that period, the Irish GDP per capita rose dramatically to equal, then eventually surpass, that of all but one state in Western Europe

Before the tax cuts, Ireland was one of the poorer western EU members, after, their GDP per capita was higher than all but Germany. I guess it was just a coincidence? LOL!

OK, Tax cuts create EVERYTHING in the con m


ind., AGAIN, you can't LINK (not copy and past and not attribute to WIKI, lol

August 11, 1999

Inside the Celtic Tiger shows that the tiger exists for only a few; for most of Ireland's people, it has largely passed them by. Denis O'Hearn looks at how Irish economic policy has become centred on attracting multinationals.

Rapid growth in the economy has been overwhelmingly concentrated in sectors dominated by multinational corporations

Ireland the myth of the Celtic tiger Green Left Weekly


Contributing writer Emily Cesta argues that “The Celtic Tiger”–Ireland’s boom economy between 1995-2007—was nothing more than a mirage of false promises.


....
It didn’t take long, however, before the building simply stopped. Unfinished apartments, abandoned buildings with only three outer walls and a serious loss of jobs were all anyone spoke of. The money simply dried up. Companies were moving. Dell moved its manufacturing plant from Limerick, Ireland to Poland. Waterford Wedgwood had a financial collapse. There was a banking crisis. Property values plummeted and no one could afford their mortgage. People were getting laid off and there was simply no more work.
The Myth of the Celtic Tiger - Money Under 30



ONCE MORE:

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

“The promotion of the myth that low taxes created the Irish economic ‘miracle’ is part of a wider, conservative political agenda which, in essence, seeks to limit the role
of the state and maintain the benefits reaped by a small minority, during the Celtic Tiger years. For them, Ireland is a low-tax economy and self-interest dictates that it
should remain so.”
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/tax_cuts_did_not_create_celtic_tiger.pdf


AGAIN, US CORP TAX RATES WERE BELOW 12%? LOL


The Irish economic miracle was in part an employment boom as it had laid the foundation for a productivity boom many years earlier. This employment boom piggybacked the U.S. technology boom with U.S. multinationals realizing that Ireland not only was a gateway into the European Union that could avoid customs duties but also a means for reducing its effective tax rate by using transfer pricing manipulation to shift U.S. income into tax-advantaged Ireland. The really odd thing about the tax cut jihadists in the U.S. is that they are now complaining that the IRS might actually enforce section 482 of the U.S. tax code. Their hypocrisy is apparent when they claim – as many have been recently doing – that enforcing section 482 will lead to an outsourcing of jobs to low-tax jurisdictions. The Irish know that the lack of enforcement of section 482 has been part of their success in attracting jobs from U.S. multinationals.


Angry Bear The Irish Economic Miracle and Tax Policy


Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.


Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


LOL

lol

So NO, you can't be honest

"
Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in."



Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

They suddenly had the 2nd highest GDP per capita, after historically being so poor, millions of their citizens emigrated, but it was totally unrelated to their tax cuts? LOL!
I've seen plenty of stupid liberals, but you're one of the dumbest.

The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state.

OMG! That's terrible. What about .......

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%

You have any other period in Irish history where their economy grew like that?

lol, YOU can't be honest. Shocking


Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%

Was that because the tax cuts were partially phased in?
Maybe you have another reason for that huge growth rate?
Any other nearby nations have such a high growth rate from 1995-2000?

Weird the strongest growth in that period was when Corp taxes were MUCH higher. Doesn't sound like lowering Corp taxes did it? lol

How about the emergence of the TECH SECTOR? And Europe 's lowest cost (English speaking) labor markets? lol


1995-2000 Ireland STILL had a 24%-34% Corp tax rate????


OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

HONESTY, TRY IT

ONCE MORE

The mechanism through which lower corporate taxes is supposed to lead to increased prosperity is higher corporate investment. The argument that lower tax rates leads to higher investment has been disproved throughout the entire OECD area, which has a experienced a secular decline in both the rate of GDP growth and the rate of investment for the last 30 years.

The same is true in Ireland. Lower taxes did not lead to higher investment. The chart below shows the level of corporate taxes versus the annual growth in the rate of investment (GFCF, Gross Fixed Capital Formation). The peak period for the growth rate of investment was in the mid-to-late 1990s. This coincides with the period of strongest GDP growth, which is not coincidental as investment plays a decisive role in growth. Both of these were before the corporate tax rate was cut drastically.

Not only did the rate of investment growth slow when corporate taxes were cut, but the composition of that investment was changed in a negative way

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

Weird the strongest growth in that period was when Corp taxes were MUCH higher. Doesn't sound like lowering Corp taxes did it?

Weird that they didn't have huge growth until they started cutting taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%; it then slowed to between 4.4 and 6.5% from 2001 to 2007

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

During that period, the Irish GDP per capita rose dramatically to equal, then eventually surpass, that of all but one state in Western Europe

Before the tax cuts, Ireland was one of the poorer western EU members, after, their GDP per capita was higher than all but Germany. I guess it was just a coincidence? LOL!

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


OOPS

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

lol

OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

Is 36% too high? Tell Obama.

Weird, Obama wants to lower to 28% and close loopholes (using money to rebuild infrastructure) , instead the GOP holds onto the 35% and the EFFECTIVE rates, the ones Corps actually pay, is 12%. But isn't it up to Congress?

Thanks for agreeing having a 36% Corp tax rate in Ireland DIDN'T stop their growth though!

I agree that cutting your rate every year will give you tremendous growth.

 

[Spare_change]

I read some here proselytizing for demand-side economics, and others bemoaning corporate tax breaks.

These positions, simply, reveal their ignorance about how our economic system works. They are more interested in planting an ego-driven stake in the ground than in determining the correct answers. One at a time ....

1) Demand-side economics ... a slavish commitment to demand-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of demand-side economics is ...

"Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending." What Is Demand-Side Economics with pictures

While that sounds good, nobody notices the dichotomy of "lower taxes on middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.". Essentially, in order to accomplish its goals, the government must lower taxes on the "middle and working class", and increase taxes on the non-"middle and working class". In theory, this allows the government to assume more control of the economy, take operating capital from the rich, and lower the tax burden on the middle class which, in turn, gives them more money to spend. In practice, however, demand-side economics increases the price of items, driving the cost of living up.

By definition, the price increase must exceed the tax break. Thus, while there is a temporary increase in standard of living, it is quickly devoured by the price increases. In the end, the poor and middle class are harmed by the price increases more than the tax break can ever provide. The resultant need to expend a larger percentage of their income in order to maintain their lifestyle - at whatever level - means there is less money for investment and research, thus driving the cost of production even higher. Add THAT ripple to the price increase, and the whole economy begins to slide backward.

2) Supply-side economics - a slavish commitment to supply-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of supply-side economics is ...

"Supply-side economics is one expression of macroeconomics that focuses on the stimulation of economic growth by encouraging greater production of goods and services. Essentially, this removes the issue of demand from the economic task, as the concept of supply-side economics takes the stand that demand will follow if there are goods available for purchase. Often, proponents of this approach will use the extension of incentives to stimulate interest or demand for the goods and services produced.


One of the more common incentives used with a supply-side economics model is to provide tax breaks. Lowering the taxes owed by manufacturers of finished goods is thought to make it practical for producers to create more products. In turn, more products mean more choices for consumers, who will respond accordingly.

Along with a reduction in taxes for the producer, supply-side economics also sometimes takes the form of lowering personal income taxes as they relate to the consumer. With this application of the method, consumers have more disposable income, since the amount of income tax that is deducted from gross pay is reduced. With more money in their pockets, consumers are more likely to feel good about the general state of the economy. This increase confidence leads to additional purchases, which in turn justifies the increased production of manufacturers." What is Supply-Side Economics with picture

The goal of supply-side economics is to increase demand by decreasing the price. This is done by creating a greater supply, thru lowered production costs (most often by cutting taxes), which in turn, will drive the price down thru competition. This will make the current earned dollar more efficient.

It must be remembered that supply and demand are the opposite sides of the economic cycle. The question becomes which should be stimulated in order to produce the desired effect. Demand-side stimulation provides temporary relief focused on raising the production through increased demand, which drives the item price up. Supply-side stimulation provides longer term relief, though still temporary, through increased demand by increased production, which lowers the price.

Which one is right? The answer is both - depending on the economic condition. The problem we have today is that we have political entities that are married to a single answer - and neither of them are right.

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, alleviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

As usual, you take what COULD be a valid position, and lead it all the way to absurd. In short, you are patently wrong ... and your last statement is laughably wrong.

Good rebuttal, so detailed and really not to lengthy on where ANY of my posits were wrong, and WHY? lol

Given the depth of your demonstrated knowledge, I figured that was as deep as I dare go. You know ... keep it simple, for the simple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

 

[Dad2three]

OK, Tax cuts create EVERYTHING in the con m


ind., AGAIN, you can't LINK (not copy and past and not attribute to WIKI, lol

August 11, 1999

Inside the Celtic Tiger shows that the tiger exists for only a few; for most of Ireland's people, it has largely passed them by. Denis O'Hearn looks at how Irish economic policy has become centred on attracting multinationals.

Rapid growth in the economy has been overwhelmingly concentrated in sectors dominated by multinational corporations

Ireland the myth of the Celtic tiger Green Left Weekly


Contributing writer Emily Cesta argues that “The Celtic Tiger”–Ireland’s boom economy between 1995-2007—was nothing more than a mirage of false promises.


....
It didn’t take long, however, before the building simply stopped. Unfinished apartments, abandoned buildings with only three outer walls and a serious loss of jobs were all anyone spoke of. The money simply dried up. Companies were moving. Dell moved its manufacturing plant from Limerick, Ireland to Poland. Waterford Wedgwood had a financial collapse. There was a banking crisis. Property values plummeted and no one could afford their mortgage. People were getting laid off and there was simply no more work.
The Myth of the Celtic Tiger - Money Under 30



ONCE MORE:

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

“The promotion of the myth that low taxes created the Irish economic ‘miracle’ is part of a wider, conservative political agenda which, in essence, seeks to limit the role
of the state and maintain the benefits reaped by a small minority, during the Celtic Tiger years. For them, Ireland is a low-tax economy and self-interest dictates that it
should remain so.”
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/tax_cuts_did_not_create_celtic_tiger.pdf


AGAIN, US CORP TAX RATES WERE BELOW 12%? LOL


The Irish economic miracle was in part an employment boom as it had laid the foundation for a productivity boom many years earlier. This employment boom piggybacked the U.S. technology boom with U.S. multinationals realizing that Ireland not only was a gateway into the European Union that could avoid customs duties but also a means for reducing its effective tax rate by using transfer pricing manipulation to shift U.S. income into tax-advantaged Ireland. The really odd thing about the tax cut jihadists in the U.S. is that they are now complaining that the IRS might actually enforce section 482 of the U.S. tax code. Their hypocrisy is apparent when they claim – as many have been recently doing – that enforcing section 482 will lead to an outsourcing of jobs to low-tax jurisdictions. The Irish know that the lack of enforcement of section 482 has been part of their success in attracting jobs from U.S. multinationals.


Angry Bear The Irish Economic Miracle and Tax Policy


Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.


Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


LOL

lol

So NO, you can't be honest

"
Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in."



Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tiger

They suddenly had the 2nd highest GDP per capita, after historically being so poor, millions of their citizens emigrated, but it was totally unrelated to their tax cuts? LOL!
I've seen plenty of stupid liberals, but you're one of the dumbest.

The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state.

OMG! That's terrible. What about .......

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%

You have any other period in Irish history where their economy grew like that?

lol, YOU can't be honest. Shocking


Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%

Was that because the tax cuts were partially phased in?
Maybe you have another reason for that huge growth rate?
Any other nearby nations have such a high growth rate from 1995-2000?

Weird the strongest growth in that period was when Corp taxes were MUCH higher. Doesn't sound like lowering Corp taxes did it? lol

How about the emergence of the TECH SECTOR? And Europe 's lowest cost (English speaking) labor markets? lol


1995-2000 Ireland STILL had a 24%-34% Corp tax rate????


OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

HONESTY, TRY IT

ONCE MORE

The mechanism through which lower corporate taxes is supposed to lead to increased prosperity is higher corporate investment. The argument that lower tax rates leads to higher investment has been disproved throughout the entire OECD area, which has a experienced a secular decline in both the rate of GDP growth and the rate of investment for the last 30 years.

The same is true in Ireland. Lower taxes did not lead to higher investment. The chart below shows the level of corporate taxes versus the annual growth in the rate of investment (GFCF, Gross Fixed Capital Formation). The peak period for the growth rate of investment was in the mid-to-late 1990s. This coincides with the period of strongest GDP growth, which is not coincidental as investment plays a decisive role in growth. Both of these were before the corporate tax rate was cut drastically.

Not only did the rate of investment growth slow when corporate taxes were cut, but the composition of that investment was changed in a negative way

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth

Weird the strongest growth in that period was when Corp taxes were MUCH higher. Doesn't sound like lowering Corp taxes did it?

Weird that they didn't have huge growth until they started cutting taxes.

Yeah, it was tax cuts that started it *Shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

AGI PER FAMILY was little more than $14,000 for the bottom 50% of US. We know the poor have LOTS of deductions right? lol