1. During the period 1946 - 1973, taxes were much higher. Marginal rates averaged 70%; they were 93% under Eisenhower. The economy was better than what we now have. For example, median wages went up 50% during this period, and only 25% since then. Also, I recently saw a graph of the national debt as a percentage of the GDP from 1946 to the present. It started high, went straight down until 1973, and then flattened out and in 1980 made a sharp turn and went straight up except for a wiggle during the Clinton administration. CEOs earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today. Starting in 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 10%, 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an ever increasing rate
2. We are now told that taxes were too high during the Clinton administration, and it would be terrible to go back to them, but the economy was better then than what we have now. For example, 20,569,000 private sector jobs were created during Clinton's terms while Bush created 417,000 with 2 trillion in tax cuts.
3. If you look at other countries, you will see that many have much higher taxes, but also higher growth rate. For example, our total tax rate is 26.1% while Sweden has a total tax rate of 50.2%, the average per capita growth in the GDP 1995 - 2005 was 2.1% for the US and 2.6% for Sweden. Spain had a 50% higher tax rate and 50% higher growth. Japan, on the other hand, had a lower tax rate and its growth was less than half of our growth.
My Dear Horatio,
I currently use the following id's:
1) Darthrapier - Usually comments on stocks.
2) Blasto - Likes Politics and blasts others' comments from time to time. "Blastoo" is the fake trying to avalanche my President Blasto.
3) Peewee - Likes China.
4) Gusto - Original id on Yahoo along with Blasto and Neutro.
5) Neutro - Makes funny comments.
6) Jimmy_Carter - Couldn't resist.
7) Jacque_poiuytier - Used to avalanche Jack.
I've been honest about who I post as (unlike many) so you can ignore any id you wish. I use them for entertainment and provocation to eclicit conversation. It's just my nature.
No need to apologize. Hopefully I have given you some information that will expand your thoughts on governmental processes.
It reminds me of one of favorite quotes "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." -Mark Twain
I will respond to da Fake. Why? Because evil taxes mee and I must confront it:
1) Taxes are taxing. If you tax a small business more they will employ less People and buy less equipment. It's just common sense. Da Laffer curve works but da Libs want to tax more in order for da Government to gain a greater share of da Economy. Dis gives dem more power over you and I. Their motive is control because dey don't trust da People.
2) Clinton? There was sweeping change in 1994 to counter Clinton. Both Houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans and Clinton moved to da Center and worked with Republicans to reduce taxes. Dis brought on da prosperity of da 1990's. Tax cuts also worked for Kennedy. When People have more of what dey earn da Economy prospers and da tide lifts all Boats. Hopefully, there will be a reaction to Obamination in 2010 and Republicans will sweep both Houses of Congress. God willing.
3) Sweden? Would you rather live in Sweden or America? It's not an AAPL to AAPL comparison because you're talking about a smaller base and a bunch of socialists who innovate nothing.
Amazingly, these idiot Libs dink dat it's ok to tax da Rich and give it to da Poor. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. So dey say. Maybe Obama should tell Kobe to give up 50% of his money to da Ball Boy because da Ball Boy is needy? Rather, shouldn't da Ball Boy aspire to play like Kobe and make a fortune by way of his own achievement? Dis is what Ayn Rand taught da world.
Blasto, these tax increases are to support a larger government, the only segment of the economy that is growing jobs. The public sector is swallowing a larger and larger portion of our total economic output. And the number of voters recieving entitlements from this public sector growth is also on the increase. These people have nothing to lose if taxes go up. They hardly pay any taxes to begin with. Our founding fathers launched the drive towards independence based on the creedo, "no taxation without representation". I'm sure they would be shocked to find that today, the creedo has become, "representation without taxation". But that is exactly the strategy of the libs. And depending on the results of the census, the percentage of the voting population not paying taxes will continue to increase.
There's definitely a "Laugher Curve" when I read your rediculous post.
My biggest problem when responding to you is determing which part of the obvious you don't understand. Is the the mathematical nuances or the economic?
Raising taxes (fiscal policy) in an inflationary economy has the relatively same effect as the Fed raising interests rates. The FED raising interest rates allows the gov't to BORROW more money cheaper for future expenditures raising Tax rates allows the govt to pay off more debt now.
Raising Tax rates during an economic recession when the FED can no longer effectively adjust the monetary policy lower it will cause a retraction in the economy.
Even with the Bush tax cuts they resulted in a jobless recovery showing that fiscal and monetary policy did little to overhaul the economy and the government intervention had reached its limits.
In times of prosperity, taxes should be raised to payoff debt and in times of recession debt should be expanded to off set the effects of the business cycle. Unfortunately, BOTH parties are just ideologues who prey on the ignorant to perpetuate they jobs.
Lets assume a 97% Tax rate and Blasto's myth. If I net $1M net and pay 970K and if I could expand to my business by 1000% and net 1B and pay $970M why would I not do this?
So businesses hire not out of need, but out of tax breaks?
So if a business does not need more help, but gets a tax break, they will hire people?
Why so serious, son?