Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Another blow to the 'trickle-down' propaganda crap we've been subjected for decades now..

if money and jobs don't trickle down from folks like Gates and Jobs where on earth do they trickle down from??????

From the poor or maybe the Girl Scouts?????

 

[Staidhup]

Fact, economic expansion has never resulted as a result of tax increases. Economic expansion is the direct result of the formation and accumulation of risk capital. Long term, stable, economic growth has never resulted from government spending. Expansion of government jobs has never resulted in broad based economic prosperity in the private sector.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Expansion of government jobs has never resulted in broad based economic prosperity in the private sector.

Yes, we got from the Stone Age to here as the private sector invented new stuff. Government does not invent and market new stuff so it does not grow the economy, but, it can cripple the economy by regulating , taxing, and diminishing it.

 

[Rshermr]

Someone want to try to name a time when, during a down economy, tax decreases helped the economy??
I have seen Reagan tried. Problem is his tax decrease in early 81 led to an unemployment rate of 10.8% in just over a year. Up from 7.4% at the start of his term. And led to a very large increase in the deficit.
So, the economy got much worse. Highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Still is.
And led to 11 tax increases and the highest borrowing ever. Trippled the national debt. Borrowed more than all preceding presidents. And used deficit spending to bring down the unemployment rate.

Maybe we should try Reagans method again.

Any examples where tax decreases worked in a down economy??

 

[Wiseacre]

Someone want to try to name a time when, during a down economy, tax decreases helped the economy??
I have seen Reagan tried. Problem is his tax decrease in early 81 led to an unemployment rate of 10.8% in just over a year. Up from 7.4% at the start of his term. And led to a very large increase in the deficit.
So, the economy got much worse. Highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Still is.
And led to 11 tax increases and the highest borrowing ever. Trippled the national debt. Borrowed more than all preceding presidents. And used deficit spending to bring down the unemployment rate.

Maybe we should try Reagans method again.

Any examples where tax decreases worked in a down economy??

2003 Bush tax cuts.

 

[Rshermr]

Someone want to try to name a time when, during a down economy, tax decreases helped the economy??
I have seen Reagan tried. Problem is his tax decrease in early 81 led to an unemployment rate of 10.8% in just over a year. Up from 7.4% at the start of his term. And led to a very large increase in the deficit.
So, the economy got much worse. Highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Still is.
And led to 11 tax increases and the highest borrowing ever. Trippled the national debt. Borrowed more than all preceding presidents. And used deficit spending to bring down the unemployment rate.

Maybe we should try Reagans method again.

Any examples where tax decreases worked in a down economy??

2003 Bush tax cuts.

Well, yeah. That was a winner. By the end of the next term, we had the great republican recession of 2008. So, maybe you are reading old heritage predictions. It is great to live in the past, makes one feel so hopeful, eh. Lets see:
"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. However, the cuts have resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception."
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment was not bad when these acts took effect. About 6%.

So, Wiseacre, I asked for a case of a bad economy being helped by a tax decrease. Apparently you do not know what a bad economy is. But it was not bad in 2003. Got that way before the bush term was over.
So, want to try again. Or did you simply want everyone to believe that the great recession of 2007 - 2008 was a good outcome??

And no, living in a fantasy does not qualify for evidence of an improving economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

Someone want to try to name a time when, during a down economy, tax decreases helped the economy??
I have seen Reagan tried. Problem is his tax decrease in early 81 led to an unemployment rate of 10.8% in just over a year. Up from 7.4% at the start of his term. And led to a very large increase in the deficit.
So, the economy got much worse. Highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Still is.
And led to 11 tax increases and the highest borrowing ever. Trippled the national debt. Borrowed more than all preceding presidents. And used deficit spending to bring down the unemployment rate.

Maybe we should try Reagans method again.

Any examples where tax decreases worked in a down economy??

2003 Bush tax cuts.

Well, yeah. That was a winner. By the end of the next term, we had the great republican recession of 2008. So, maybe you are reading old heritage predictions. It is great to live in the past, makes one feel so hopeful, eh. Lets see:
"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. However, the cuts have resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception."
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment was not bad when these acts took effect. About 6%.

So, Wiseacre, I asked for a case of a bad economy being helped by a tax decrease. Apparently you do not know what a bad economy is. But it was not bad in 2003. Got that way before the bush term was over.
So, want to try again. Or did you simply want everyone to believe that the great recession of 2007 - 2008 was a good outcome??

And no, living in a fantasy does not qualify for evidence of an improving economy.

First of all, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2008 recession. Nothing.

Second, I couldn't care less about whatever the Heritage Foundation said about anything in 2001, obvously that was before 9/11 and the Iraq war. It's true that Bush43 spent a lot of money, many conservatives were not thrilled including me. I would far rather have a gov't that tries to find the most effective and cost efficient way to accomplish some functions rather than just throwing more money at them.

Third, the economy may have been growing somewhat meagerly before the tax cuts, but those tax cuts did help accelerate growth and job creation. Check out the UE and job numbers for those years, not bad. That said - I'm not going to claim that the '03 cuts were the sole reason for the economic surge, it ain't that simple. But I am claiming that it was a step in a positive direction.

Agreed, those '03 tax cuts were a winner.

 

[Care4all]

2003 Bush tax cuts.

Well, yeah. That was a winner. By the end of the next term, we had the great republican recession of 2008. So, maybe you are reading old heritage predictions. It is great to live in the past, makes one feel so hopeful, eh. Lets see:
"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. However, the cuts have resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception."
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment was not bad when these acts took effect. About 6%.

So, Wiseacre, I asked for a case of a bad economy being helped by a tax decrease. Apparently you do not know what a bad economy is. But it was not bad in 2003. Got that way before the bush term was over.
So, want to try again. Or did you simply want everyone to believe that the great recession of 2007 - 2008 was a good outcome??

And no, living in a fantasy does not qualify for evidence of an improving economy.

First of all, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2008 recession. Nothing.

Second, I couldn't care less about whatever the Heritage Foundation said about anything in 2001, obvously that was before 9/11 and the Iraq war. It's true that Bush43 spent a lot of money, many conservatives were not thrilled including me. I would far rather have a gov't that tries to find the most effective and cost efficient way to accomplish some functions rather than just throwing more money at them.

Third, the economy may have been growing somewhat meagerly before the tax cuts, but those tax cuts did help accelerate growth and job creation. Check out the UE and job numbers for those years, not bad. That said - I'm not going to claim that the '03 cuts were the sole reason for the economic surge, it ain't that simple. But I am claiming that it was a step in a positive direction.

Agreed, those '03 tax cuts were a winner.

No they did NOT help spur the economy....

The faux housing boom is what spurred the economy and that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the tax cuts.....NADA, NIENTE, ZIP, NOTHING....to do with the tax cuts.

and the recession president Bush inherited began March of 2001 and ENDED November of 2001....a very minor blip of a recession. Do your homework Chief.

 

[Oddball]

Well, yeah. That was a winner. By the end of the next term, we had the great republican recession of 2008. So, maybe you are reading old heritage predictions. It is great to live in the past, makes one feel so hopeful, eh. Lets see:
"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. However, the cuts have resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception."
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment was not bad when these acts took effect. About 6%.

So, Wiseacre, I asked for a case of a bad economy being helped by a tax decrease. Apparently you do not know what a bad economy is. But it was not bad in 2003. Got that way before the bush term was over.
So, want to try again. Or did you simply want everyone to believe that the great recession of 2007 - 2008 was a good outcome??

And no, living in a fantasy does not qualify for evidence of an improving economy.

First of all, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2008 recession. Nothing.

Second, I couldn't care less about whatever the Heritage Foundation said about anything in 2001, obvously that was before 9/11 and the Iraq war. It's true that Bush43 spent a lot of money, many conservatives were not thrilled including me. I would far rather have a gov't that tries to find the most effective and cost efficient way to accomplish some functions rather than just throwing more money at them.

Third, the economy may have been growing somewhat meagerly before the tax cuts, but those tax cuts did help accelerate growth and job creation. Check out the UE and job numbers for those years, not bad. That said - I'm not going to claim that the '03 cuts were the sole reason for the economic surge, it ain't that simple. But I am claiming that it was a step in a positive direction.

Agreed, those '03 tax cuts were a winner.

No they did NOT help spur the economy....

The faux housing boom is what spurred the economy and that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the tax cuts.....NADA, NIENTE, ZIP, NOTHING....to do with the tax cuts.

and the recession president Bush inherited began March of 2001 and ENDED November of 2001....a very minor blip of a recession. Do your homework Chief.

How did the housing boom contribute to higher federal tax receipts?

 

[Wiseacre]

Well, yeah. That was a winner. By the end of the next term, we had the great republican recession of 2008. So, maybe you are reading old heritage predictions. It is great to live in the past, makes one feel so hopeful, eh. Lets see:
"The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010. However, the cuts have resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception."
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment was not bad when these acts took effect. About 6%.

So, Wiseacre, I asked for a case of a bad economy being helped by a tax decrease. Apparently you do not know what a bad economy is. But it was not bad in 2003. Got that way before the bush term was over.
So, want to try again. Or did you simply want everyone to believe that the great recession of 2007 - 2008 was a good outcome??

And no, living in a fantasy does not qualify for evidence of an improving economy.

First of all, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2008 recession. Nothing.

Second, I couldn't care less about whatever the Heritage Foundation said about anything in 2001, obvously that was before 9/11 and the Iraq war. It's true that Bush43 spent a lot of money, many conservatives were not thrilled including me. I would far rather have a gov't that tries to find the most effective and cost efficient way to accomplish some functions rather than just throwing more money at them.

Third, the economy may have been growing somewhat meagerly before the tax cuts, but those tax cuts did help accelerate growth and job creation. Check out the UE and job numbers for those years, not bad. That said - I'm not going to claim that the '03 cuts were the sole reason for the economic surge, it ain't that simple. But I am claiming that it was a step in a positive direction.

Agreed, those '03 tax cuts were a winner.

No they did NOT help spur the economy....

The faux housing boom is what spurred the economy and that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the tax cuts.....NADA, NIENTE, ZIP, NOTHING....to do with the tax cuts.

and the recession president Bush inherited began March of 2001 and ENDED November of 2001....a very minor blip of a recession. Do your homework Chief.

True, the Bush tax cuts had nothing at all to do with the housing boom/bubble, or the ensuing recession when the bubble popped. Perhaps you are suggesting that the housing boom was responsible for the economic upturn from 2003-2007? But that boom had been ongoing for several years dating back to the early 90s. Doubt you could make a strong case for that being the cause of the upturn in question.

The 2001 recession may have ended in Nov 2001, but that combined with 9/11 did leave the country somewhat fearful and uncertain. Those tax cuts in '01 and '03 were as much psychologically as economically healing, people got the message to get back to work making money. I remember losing a lot of money during 2000-2001, my 401k/IRAs took a major hit. Wasn't no blip to me. Those tax cuts DID spur the economy, I wouldn't claim they were the ONLY factor but I would argue they were a big factor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Someone want to try to name a time when, during a down economy, tax decreases helped the economy??
I have seen Reagan tried. Problem is his tax decrease in early 81 led to an unemployment rate of 10.8% in just over a year. Up from 7.4% at the start of his term. And led to a very large increase in the deficit.
So, the economy got much worse. Highest unemployment rate since the great depression. Still is.
And led to 11 tax increases and the highest borrowing ever. Trippled the national debt. Borrowed more than all preceding presidents. And used deficit spending to bring down the unemployment rate.

Maybe we should try Reagans method again.

Any examples where tax decreases worked in a down economy??

it is perfectly obvious to all but a tiny child and a liberal that if you tax money away from venture capitalists, for example, you will have fewer new ventures funded.


A liberal would have us believe that the more we tax from venture capitalists the more new ventures they will be able to fund!!

Yes. liberals are really that slow!!

 

[shockedcanadian]

...and now Mark Carney of The Bank of Canada has publicly called out these same corporations for hoarding their cash instead of using it to reinvest and create empployment.

Cutting taxes in theory is supposed to work but not when the business leaders are afraid themselves; even as they tell everyone things are great, and hold on to billions of dollars of cash instead of putting it to work, than the purpose is defeated from the start.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...and now Mark Carney of The Bank of Canada has publicly called out these same corporations for hoarding their cash instead of using it to reinvest and create empployment.

Cutting taxes in theory is supposed to work but not when the business leaders are afraid themselves; even as they tell everyone things are great, and hold on to billions of dollars of cash instead of putting it to work, than the purpose is defeated from the start.

too stupid!! do you want a socialist government telling them where and when and how much to invest? They exist to make money and when they see an opportunity they will take it, and not before.

In the mean time liberal governemnt must stop interfereing with the free market to create a stable, growing economy into which a mature corporation will invest.

Having a communist president in America obviously does not create a stable environment. Thats problem number one.