• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Lasting Legacy of the Last Decade: A Shrinking Middle Class

RJKarl said:
Revenues are destined to go up during the next five years as the economy will continue growing. cutting rates will not create more revenue. Growing the economy will.

I'll put it bluntly. There is nothing you can say that would ever convince me that in the same level of an economy that cutting taxes will ever create more revenue nor that cutting taxes at this point would ever create any jobs.
Click to expand...

To your first point, we're completely 20/20. To your second, I'm confident we'll have ample opportunity to discuss along the way.
 
No, we won't.

We never grew and economy as dramatically as we did under Clinton. He raised the top marginal rate.

W lowered everyone's taxes and didn't create enough jobs to even keep up with population growth.

I guess that proves my point definitively.

The changes in tax rates we are talking about now will have no impact on jobs.
 
RJKarl said:
No, we won't.

We never grew and economy as dramatically as we did under Clinton. He raised the top marginal rate.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase a friend of mine, increasing the top rate wasn't the only play. There was welfare reform, NAFTA, a reduction (surprise!!) in the capital gains rate, and other pro-growth tax and fiscal policies as well.
 
bobknightfan said:
What I don't understand is why some supposedly intelligent Wake Forest graduates and/or students who post on this board cannot understand this simple goddamned fact. One would think a guy in the 8th grade could understand it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're starting with a bad premise? Maybe only your left-thinking peers are bright enough to 'get it'.
 
But you taxes do that. At our current rates, changing personal rates will have no impact on jobs or the economy. Having the clinton tax rates (including capital gains) certainly didn't stop growth.

There's no reason not to go to back to those levels.
 
RJKarl said:
There were other ways in those days to shelter money. You are talking apples and oranges.

No one is talking about 90% tax rates. It is ludicrous to think that cutting current tax rates will create more revenues.

Revenues are destined to go up during the next five years as the economy will continue growing. cutting rates will not create more revenue. Growing the economy will.

I'll put it bluntly. There is nothing you can say that would ever convince me that in the same level of an economy that cutting taxes will ever create more revenue nor that cutting taxes at this point would ever create any jobs.

It's as silly as saying raising the top rate by 4% for income over $250,000 will cost jobs. This concept is insulting to anyone who has ever run a business.

If my business had pretax profits of $350,000 or even $1,000,000, that hire or that piece of equipment would never impacted by the rate increase. If it makes sense with the 4% it makes sense without it.
Click to expand...

If "the rich" have 4% less of their paycheck to spend next year, do you think (on average, now) that businesses would expand more quickly than otherwise or less quickly? On average, would more people be hired throughout the country or fewer?
 
That's what it all comes down to. Taxes have never been better for job creators yet we have over 8% unemployment supposedly because the taxes aren't low enough.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
If "the rich" have 4% less of their paycheck to spend next year, do you think (on average, now) that businesses would expand more quickly than otherwise or less quickly?

It would make absolutely no difference.

On average, would more people be hired throughout the country or fewer?
Click to expand...

There would be ZERO difference. If your company had taxable income of $500,000. It would only cost you $10,000. If it makes sense to hire that person with the $10,000 more, it would make just as much sense without the $10,000.

Only those who have never run a business would this would have ANY impact on jobs.
 
This is one of the fallacies that plague statists. In your dream world, RJ, companies just keep on making millions, no matter how high the taxes go. In the real world, when the government grabs more of your paycheck there is less money for the citizens to spend at the business than there would otherwise have been and the $500,000 "profit" goes down or does not increase as much as the business might have projected, leaving the business less able to hire.
 
I said no such thing. I was specific about the 4%. Why do you insist on lying about what I said?

Most people don't live in your luddite world without credit. If you don't have the money immediately to buy something you can buy it on credit. Also for your premise to be believable, the people woudl have to be spending ALL of their money. This simply isn't true at the highest level or if they are they are being irrational.
 
If government takes more of what people have to spend, credit or no credit, rich or poor, then there is less available to spend in the private sector than there would otherwise have been. The nongovernment economy will grow slower (or maybe shrink faster) than would otherwise be the case. This is one of the good reasons why government should be limited to its legitimate functions where the service it provides justifies the cost.
 
Total spending as % of GDP did go down slightly during the Clinton years, then went back up in the Bush years. Marginal tax rates don't tell the story as far as how much of the economy is hogged by the politicians. There was certainly no decrease in the cut the government has taken over the last ten years.

Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Total spending as % of GDP did go down slightly during the Clinton years, then went back up in the Bush years. Marginal tax rates don't tell the story as far as how much of the economy is hogged by the politicians. There was certainly no decrease in the cut the government has taken over the last ten years.

Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png
Click to expand...

Now examine what "big ticket items" the government has promised and the unnecessary "big ticket items" of the past decade.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Total spending as % of GDP did go down slightly during the Clinton years, then went back up in the Bush years. Marginal tax rates don't tell the story as far as how much of the economy is hogged by the politicians. There was certainly no decrease in the cut the government has taken over the last ten years.

Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png
Click to expand...

Does state and local government spending come on top of that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top