In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?
Toddsterpatriot responds: In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7. 2%.
Here is the thing, toddster. You need to exhibit a bit of integrity. Like the truth, you know. As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82. Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time, and tax INCREASES (several by Nov 84). And he spent, and he hired public employees. So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work. Only someone who REALLY wants to believe that would believe tax cuts helped Reagan. If you still don't want to admit it, then tell us all why Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.
During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.
Toddsterpatriot responds: Which ones were you seeing?
follow this link to see Politifact discuss claimed 17 tax cuts for small business, for example:
PolitiFact | DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz says Obama has signed bills with 17 small business tax cuts
According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. So, what are you talking about.
Where are the increases you are concerned about?
Toddsterpatriot responds: He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.
Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k. On the margin, of course. By
3 whole percent. That's a killer, right. Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy. That would apply to corporations also, but there are no proposals relative to corporations separately
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??
What is funny is that you are blaming obama for the requirement that everyone pays, which was a Republican idea. And part of Romneycare. Same for cap and trade. A republican proposal that they now pretend they always hated. Problem is, they are on the record.
So, no new taxes, but some proposed ones. Integrity is a good thing. You should consider it.
during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.
Toddsterpatriot responds:OMG! That's funny.
You should get out more often, Toddster. It is all over the internet. If you just follow fox and the other right wing sights, they will never tell you. Google obama regulation decreases and see what you find.
White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190427900457652487030761..
If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray. As would any progressive. Funny thing to me is that cons don't seem to mind. Do you???
As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82.
Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?
Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time
As a % of GDP, what was the increase?
So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work.
Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?
Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k.
Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.
Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy.
Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??
You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.
According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates.
Revenues drop when the economy slows.
If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray.
I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.
Toddster, me boy. You just can not let go, can you??? You are wrong on every point where you could
wrong. enough is enough.
Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?
No, I did not forget. They weenre reducing rates as fast as they could because inflation was getting much better. So what is your point. Old saying in economics - you can't push on a string. Look it up. So, Toddster, me boy, why DID Reagan raise taxes 11 times, and triple the national debt by borrowing more than all the previous presidents?? I hear crickets$$$
And Toddster, it was a LONG TIME in Political Years for the administration. Fifteen months. Which is not a long time at all to increase the deficit by record amounts. And to get make unemployment skyrocket. Took a while to bring it back down, but based on the stimulus that Reagan was able to wield, it turned around as it should have. Just think of what obama could have done could he have gotten any cooperation from congress, as Reagan did.
As a % of GDP, what was the increase?
Why don't you look it up. Oh, hell, here you are:
Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?
Regan has the highest unemployment at 10.8% in dec 83, 2 years after taking over
Before 2009, Reagan held the record for the largest deficit since WW2 at 6.1% of GDP in fiscal year 1983) (Source: cbo 5056)
Reagan STILL holds the record for increasing our debt.
Reagan increased our debt an average of 23% yearly...he TRIPLED it from 934B to 2.6T (186%)
Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...he DOUBLED it from 5.7 to 10.6T (86%)
Obama increased our debt an average of 16% yearly from 10.6 to 14T (inherited massive deficits)
Source: US Treasury Dept.
Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?
for multiple reasons. If you really cared you would find out yourself. Simple research. First, Obama did not spend much, much more on STIMULUS. He negotiated with congress to get through a barely helpful stimulus, made up of half tax cuts (look it up, you tea party friends will not admit it is true, and I am tired of doing your research). Secondly, you as most cons believe that tax cuts are going to really help. As it did not with Reagan, it did not with obama. His tax cuts were better aimed but much smaller than Reagans.
Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.
You are, again, not doing your research. Total Small Businesses with over $250K in taxable income make up less than 3% of all small businesses. So, again, as I said previously, nothing was in his tax plans to increase taxes on corporations specifically.
Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?
Yes, I know all cons believe that Clinton was just lucky. So why should I believe you would be any different?
You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.
I did not suggest he did not, now, did I. I simply asked for your proof. And as always, you did not provide any. That is another trait. Cons are typically lazy.
Revenues drop when the economy slows.
Toddster, Toddster, Toddster. What I said was: According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. I was not discussing revenue. If you do not pay more attention, I will not try to educate you more.
I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.
Where are those taxes to the middle class under $250K. Assuming repubs like decreased taxes, there will be none. So, no lie. But you are a true con. Never admit you are wrong, even when it is staring you in the face. And always believe fox.
More proof FOX viewers dumber than the average American
