read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Its all there.
The first: Deregulation of banks and investment banks. Glass Stegal was put in place following the crash of 1929 which led to the depression. Congress and the Clinton administration were wrongly convinced that such regulation limiting bank investment and involment in risky investment and Investment banking involvement in bank and insurance activity, was no longer necessary. they couldn't have been more wrong as we have seen.
The second: Congress and the Clinton administration, with the noble goal of increasing home ownership among the lower middle class, the working poor and the poor, increased the percentage of sub-prime mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC had to purchase from 20% of the total mortgages that they buy from banks to 50%. Later, under the Bush 2 administration, this percentage was even pushed to 55% (you can youtube Frank and SHumer giving speeches as to how what greta shape those government guaranteed instutions were just before the meltdown). So half of the mortgages that HAD to be underwritten by banks HAD to essentially be risky/bad mortgages.
You combine the risky investing now going on with and between banks and investment banks with the govenments decision to guaranttee half of all the country's new mortgages as long as they were to people who really should never be given a mortgage and you have disaster.
These two facts had nothing to do with taxes. Thankfully, unemployment was so low before the meltdown, due to lower taxes, that we didn't go into a full blown recession like in the 1930s.
I think that you are mixing apples and oranges. My premise is not mine. It has been widely documented and reported.
Other factors besides tax rates drive economic growth, and yes, we have had periods of strong growth while at the same time as we had high tax rates. the best example of this is the post WW2 era. But economic growth would have been certainly been higher with lower tax rates. That boom period was driven by enormous stimuli and particularly from government spending as a percentage of GDP due to the war effort, much of which was relatively quickly converted to peace time industrial output. Remember that the tax rates were the same before the war, and we had a depression then.
If you seperate the periods of excessive stimulous (like wars and near economic melt downs), you will find that tax revenues as a % of real GDP moved very little. Do your research and ignore the propeganda.
You are right with respect to some concentrations of wealth where loopholes in taxation are concerned. Clearly there are some very good opportunities to close some loopholes, like "Carried Interest" for hedge funds, where partners of such companies take all their income as capital gains rather than ordinary income. Also, I would argue that there is a significant economic underground for small and medium-sized businesses where they under-report and often severely, cash revenues and over report personal expenses as business expenses. But those are other topics.
Your comment: "Also one of the greatest economic upheavals took place a few years following a substantial reduction in tax rates in the last decade" is just a sound bite that I would expect from the media which when investigation of cause and effect doesn't square. The last decade failures can be clearly tied back to two major events. These events, had they not ocurred, would with certainty, have had us avoided the semi-financial and economical meltdown. continued below.
I don't think that anyone believes that tax rates should be zero. But in fact, for a large portion of the income producing population it is 0% for income taxes and only in the single digits for Social Security (excluding local sales and property taxes if you own a home). The unfortunate part of this is the need for everyone to have skin in the game in deciding how the money is spent. When you are only spending other people's money, that leads to inequity, corruption and ultimately a full blown welfare state which cannot thrive and survive. The fascinating thing is, if you study our economic history, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP remain very steady no matter what tax rates are. They tend to be between 18 and 21%. What this tells us is that when you raise taxes, it slows GDP and the government’s tax revenues along with it. When you cut tax rates, GDP goes up dragging tax revenues with it, ultimately landing in the same place. However, the major difference is the condition and impact on the working public: clearly economic job producing and wage increasing growth drives unemployment down and results in a better standard of living for all. These are facts that are in the public record, and strategically proven by Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, who all employed lower taxing strategies during their administrations.
Breaking news: Washington Redskins change there name.
Following all the complaints, protests and fighting, the Washington Redskins have changed their name. Now they will be known as just THE REDSKINS.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The Washington Redskins have decided to change their name due to all the complaints, protesting, and anger. They will now be known only as The Redskins.
"When Bush was President, she was Hannah Montana. Thanks Obama!"
Sentiment: Strong Buy
You really don't know squat about economics and the history. Glass Steagle was repealed and the percentage of sub prime mortgages that had to be written was changed during the Clinton administration, not the bush administration. Also, go search on youtube and you will hear Shumer and Frank giving speaches in 06 and 07 that Fannie and Freddie were in fine shape. As of today, Glass Steagle is still repealed and Fannie and Freddie still have to fill their portfolios with 55% sub prime mortgages or bad risky loans (if you are to stupid to know what sub-prime really means). Why hasn't the POTUS fixed these huge issues? Because he is useless and couldn't lead his way through a one way tunnel.
Excuse me??? Did you not see the bill that the house approved on Monday to reverse the exemtions for the WH and congress that Harry Reid called dead on arrival?
So are you happy with the exeption granted to Congress and big Unions? They clearly didn't like it enough to live by Obamacare themselves. The people should be up in arms over this. Throw the bums out, all of them!
Health care reform. We will see about that. Congress and the White house are exempt, big union is exempt. whats with that?? Blatent bull #$%$. There is no health care reform without tort reform first, and there was no tort reform. Also, we still haven't reduced the requirement that of the mortgages that are bought in by Fannie and Freddie (all government guaranteed), 55% MUST be sub-prime. Unbelieveable! That requirement (was 20%) as well as the repeal of Glass Steagle (under Bill Clinton) were the root problems to the financial crises. We put in place the "full employment act" for compliance people, regulators and lawyers, but we still didn't change the laws that caused the problems!
Clearly you, like our President have no education or experience in economics and capital. In the fabric of our constitution are checks and balances. This President chooses to override this part of our system of government and will not compromise (i.e. "will not negotiate") with people that disagree with his lack of concerns over the national debt as well as the 63% of Americans that do not want Obamacare thrust upon them. This ALL has to do with the constitution. It is all about socialism and cronyism. He signed a waiver for congress and his administration which states that they are not subject to Obamacare. When your daddy needs a pacemaker and the governement says no, hes one year past life expectency, don't come whining, he's your guy.
Oh yeah because they want to continue with that old rag....what is is called? Oh yeah, the constitution. You are on another planet. Perhaps since you prefer the one party tyranny system, you should move to the middle east or Africa.
So, our Pres will negotiate with Syria, he will negotiate with Putin, he will negotiate with Iran, he will negotiate with the South Korea, he will negotiate with the Taliban, etc etc.....but he won't negotiate with republican US citizens in congress? Am I missing something?
Sentiment: Strong Buy