Income Tax Cuts Don't Spur Economic Growth

[djAdvocate]

i have been saying this for almost a decade. i finally have something to back me up, other than my own work:

www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/analysis-tax-cuts-don-t-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds-20120917

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and gross domestic product growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No.

Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.

But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth.



i doubt the right will stop peddling their bull*&t which claims the opposite, but i would challenge them to put up ANYTHING that resembles proof to back it up.

toodles.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

IT is the type of taxes that are lowers/raised that makes the difference.

Reagan cut marginal tax rates that resulted in a couple of decade economic boom. W cut marginal and investment rates and resulted in another economic boom. The financial meltdown was based in the real estate sector which was affected by the fed lowering rates and pressure on lenders to make bad loans.


Incidentally, during the Clinton years the capital gains tax rate was also lowered. The economy floundered until this was done.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 12:58:44 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

IT is the type of taxes that are lowers/raised that makes the difference.

Reagan cut marginal tax rates that resulted in a couple of decade economic boom. W cut marginal and investment rates and resulted in another economic boom. The financial meltdown was based in the real estate sector which was affected by the fed lowering rates and pressure on lenders to make bad loans.

all of this is anecdotal, SF. one could just as easily say that FDR raised rates to 90% which resulted in (2) decades of economic growth, and one would be equally wrong. the fact is that top incremental tax rates have no correlation to economic growth, and that is the point of the study, if you would care to read it before you disembowel all over it.


Incidentally, during the Clinton years the capital gains tax rate was also lowered. The economy floundered until this was done.

irrelevant. this study has only to so with PIT rates. investment taxes would require a completely different study.

[djAdvocate]

so, to reiterate:

the GOP meme about lowering income tax rates spurring economic growth, which is repeated so often that it is taken as an article of faith, is completely devoid of truth.

[b2r]

So, Johnson has come out in favor of higher taxes...more government?

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 12:53:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i have been saying this for almost a decade. i finally have something to back me up, other than my own work:

www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/analysis-tax-cuts-don-t-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds-20120917

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and gross domestic product growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No.

Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.

But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth.



i doubt the right will stop peddling their bull*&t which claims the opposite, but i would challenge them to put up ANYTHING that resembles proof to back it up.

toodles.

And Clinton reformed Welfare and economic expansion flourished. So stop all the welfare spending and fix our economy!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 13:22:52 GMT -5 jkapp said:

And Clinton reformed Welfare and economic expansion flourished. So stop all the welfare spending and fix our economy!

not following you. what does this have to do with the relationship between income taxes and growth, again?

[cme1201]

Sept 19, 2012 13:20:26 GMT -5 b2r said:

So, Johnson has come out in favor of higher taxes...more government?

No he has come out in favor of a new revenue stream by legalizing Pot, regulating and taxing it like cigarettes and Alcohol and not placing so many people in Jail because of it.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 13:25:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:22:52 GMT -5 jkapp said:

And Clinton reformed Welfare and economic expansion flourished. So stop all the welfare spending and fix our economy!

not following you. what does this have to do with the relationship between income taxes and growth, again?

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy.

Both may be bullshit or both may be accurate (partially or otherwise). You have your opinion on one, I have my opinion on the other.

[Gardening Grandma]

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy. building infrastructure and putting people to work spurs economy.

Fixed. You're welcome.

[Driftr]

Sept 19, 2012 13:35:34 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy. building infrastructure and putting people to work spurs economy.

Fixed. You're welcome.

Now if only you could find a Dem that would do what they say.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:57 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:25:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not following you. what does this have to do with the relationship between income taxes and growth, again?

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy.

Both may be bullshit or both may be accurate (partially or otherwise). You have your opinion on one, I have my opinion on the other.

i have an opinion on both, actually- but this thread is about only one of them. what is your opinion on it?

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 13:35:34 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy. building infrastructure and putting people to work spurs economy.

Fixed. You're welcome.

Sorry, but welfare is not spent on infrastructure or putting people to work. Please try again...

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 13:55:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:57 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy.

Both may be bullshit or both may be accurate (partially or otherwise). You have your opinion on one, I have my opinion on the other.

i have an opinion on both, actually- but this thread is about only one of them. what is your opinion on it?

My opinion is that certain tax cuts, or really tax reform in certain areas, can spur economic activity. I don't believe what some republicans have thrown out there as far as just across the board cuts on marginal income tax rates will do much, just like Obama's ridiculous SS tax cut of 2% didn't do much of anything.

But, for instance, they could alter the cap gains tax to take stock sold within a year to be a higher percentage (say 40%), stock sold between 1 and 5 years at 15%, and sold after more than five years at 5%. This, IMO, would level out the wild swings in the market as people held their stock longer, while hitting the day-traders in the nuts for trying to make quick gains from people's 401ks

i have an opinion on both, actually- but this thread is about only one of them.

BTW, now you know how I feel when I criticize OBama about something and you come back wth "But Buuuuush." I wasn't talking about Bush, I was talking about Obama...please follow your own advice in the future and stay on topic

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

My opinion is that certain tax cuts, or really tax reform in certain areas, can spur economic activity. I don't believe what some republicans have thrown out there as far as just across the board cuts on marginal income tax rates will do much, just like Obama's ridiculous SS tax cut of 2% didn't do much of anything.

The thinking behind the SS tax cut was to spur consumer spending. Consumer spending was already back to levels just prior to the economic meltdown. What is lagging is investment spending by business.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 14:16:39 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:55:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i have an opinion on both, actually- but this thread is about only one of them. what is your opinion on it?

My opinion is that certain tax cuts, or really tax reform in certain areas, can spur economic activity.

the OP, the thread title, and the rhetoric center SPECIFICALLY around income tax cuts. are THOSE effective at spurring economic activity, iyo?

[fairlycrazy23]

Sept 19, 2012 13:35:34 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy. building infrastructure and putting people to work spurs economy.

Fixed. You're welcome.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 14:44:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2012 14:16:39 GMT -5 jkapp said:

My opinion is that certain tax cuts, or really tax reform in certain areas, can spur economic activity.

the OP, the thread title, and the rhetoric center SPECIFICALLY around income tax cuts. are THOSE effective at spurring economic activity, iyo?

That's not what the thread title stated at first...

But, yes, they can. If it gets substantial money back into the hands of consumers, then of course it will cause more people to spend. However, it must also come with a stable economy/employment atmosphere. If people think they could lose their job at any time, that money will go right into the bank account.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The financial meltdown was based in the real estate sector which was affected by the fed lowering rates and pressure on lenders to make bad loans.

Jesus. You're still peddling that bullshit?? You realize of course that the Fed disagrees with you, economists disagree with you, the guys who run financial institutions disagree with you. Basically the only people still peddling that narrative are right wing political hacks.

I've posted links to information disproving it before, but if you'd like me to do it again I will.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 14:16:39 GMT -5 jkapp said:

BTW, now you know how I feel when I criticize OBama about something and you come back wth "But Buuuuush." I wasn't talking about Bush, I was talking about Obama...please follow your own advice in the future and stay on topic

ok, if you ever start a thread, and the subject is Obama, i promise not to change the subject to Bush.

now, can you at least honor me with your opinion on the subject of this thread?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 14:53:10 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2012 14:44:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the OP, the thread title, and the rhetoric center SPECIFICALLY around income tax cuts. are THOSE effective at spurring economic activity, iyo?

That's not what the thread title stated at first...

the title didn't accurately reflect the OP. i thought it clearer to correct that, rather than waiting for an admin or someone like you to remind me of that fact.

But, yes, they can. If it gets substantial money back into the hands of consumers, then of course it will cause more people to spend. However, it must also come with a stable economy/employment atmosphere. If people think they could lose their job at any time, that money will go right into the bank account.

i didn't ask you if they can. i asked if they DO. there is a difference, and it is causality.

what the GOP has been claiming for decades is that tax cuts spur economic growth. i would take that claim as INVARIABLY. likewise, they have claimed that tax increases INVARIABLY stifle economic growth.

DO....YOU.....BELIEVE.....THIS.....IS..... TRUE?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 14:52:39 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:35:34 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Reps say tax cuts spur economy.

Dems say welfare spending spurs economy. building infrastructure and putting people to work spurs economy.

Fixed. You're welcome.

ok, but this is not the subject of the thread. the subject of the thread is whether INCOME TAX CUTS have this effect.

do they?

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 14:57:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2012 14:53:10 GMT -5 jkapp said:

That's not what the thread title stated at first...

the title didn't accurately reflect the OP. i thought it clearer to correct that, rather than waiting for an admin or someone like you to remind me of that fact.

But, yes, they can. If it gets substantial money back into the hands of consumers, then of course it will cause more people to spend. However, it must also come with a stable economy/employment atmosphere. If people think they could lose their job at any time, that money will go right into the bank account.

i didn't ask you if they can. i asked if they DO. there is a difference, and it is causality.

what the GOP has been claiming for decades is that tax cuts spur economic growth. i would take that claim as INVARIABLY. likewise, they have claimed that tax increases INVARIABLY stifle economic growth.

DO....YOU.....BELIEVE.....THIS.....IS..... TRUE?

I did answer it...yes they can. Have the cuts in the past done so, is a different question. If the tax cuts the Reps propose are done correctly, which they aren't set up to do from what I've heard (although I haven't heard a very detailed plan), then yes they can spur growth. Will they spur growth is unfortunately a multi-factor issue that is impossible to forsee, much the same as saying "More stimulus spending will pull us out of the recession."

[Deleted]

DJ

As a whole, i dont know the answer to that question

But i can tell you that IF my taxes were to decrease 5%, part of that would be spent, and part of that would be invested (in my case that would be approx 3k annually for the 5% decrease)

If spending makes the economy go, then one would "assume" that more money in the system would indeed spur economic growth

Do i have any data to back up that hypothesis? no....

But common sense tells me i would not be alone in spending some, and saving some

But let me add that as my taxes go up next year, which they will be in my state at the very least....i will have LESS money to spend on wants....and some of those wants will have to be tabled to another time.....so do tax increase decrease activity, again i would say yes, but again i look at it from MY perspective

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 15:23:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2012 14:57:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i didn't ask you if they can. i asked if they DO. there is a difference, and it is causality.

what the GOP has been claiming for decades is that tax cuts spur economic growth. i would take that claim as INVARIABLY. likewise, they have claimed that tax increases INVARIABLY stifle economic growth.

DO....YOU.....BELIEVE.....THIS.....IS..... TRUE?

I did answer it...yes they can. Have the cuts in the past done so, is a different question. If the tax cuts the Reps propose are done correctly, which they aren't set up to do from what I've heard (although I haven't heard a very detailed plan), then yes they can spur growth. Will they spur growth is unfortunately a multi-factor issue that is impossible to forsee, much the same as saying "More stimulus spending will pull us out of the recession."

again, i am not asking you if they can. when Mitt Romney says "i am going to cut taxes...." his next line is not "which CAN spur growth". his next line is "which SPURS GROWTH". that is not stating a conditional fact, a dependent fact, but an absolute truth.

but i can see that i am going to keep getting this conditional response from you, so i will take it as my wife does. maybe means no.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 15:30:03 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

DJ

As a whole, i dont know the answer to that question

But i can tell you that IF my taxes were to decrease 5%, part of that would be spent, and part of that would be invested (in my case that would be approx 3k annually for the 5% decrease)

If spending makes the economy go, then one would "assume" that more money in the system would indeed spur economic growth

Do i have any data to back up that hypothesis? no....

thank you. that is always the next question. i have data to back up my assertion that it does NOT spur growth. and there are a LOT of reasons for why that is true- but this is not a thread about WHY.

But common sense tells me i would not be alone in spending some, and saving some

i know, and this is why i have very little faith in common sense. common sense tells us a LOT of things that are false. common sense says that the earth is flat, for example. common sense tells us that the sun revolves around the earth. what we observe is not the arbiter of truth, tho- obviously. sometimes it is good to analyze data.

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, jk and gd- if you are asking me whether it is "just common sense" that leaving more money on the table for consumers would spur consumer spending, i would say YES- that is "common sense". and this is WHY it is so hard to convince people that this MIGHT not be true. it is WHY this idea is so firmly rooted in the consciousness of most Americans that even that socialist racial communist anti-capitalist OBAMA says it. but what i am saying in this thread is that i have not believed it is true for many years now, based on historical data, and now there is someone out there to back me up. i have yet to see ANY evidence on the side of the opposition in the decade or so i have been challenging this idea, other than "it is just common sense". it would seem that economic behavior defies common sense, and i think that is precisely what is going on here, because the data simply does not support that cutting taxes spurs growth. for every example you can show me of that taking place, i can provide you with an example where growth was apparently spurred by INCREASING taxes.

let me give a counterexample to the idea that having more money floating around increases economic growth. if i know that i will be paying more in taxes next year, i might choose to embark on an expensive project at work- like hiring and training a new salesman. why? because if i do, it will drive down my corporate income, which will drive down my taxes. but what is the impact of hiring that salesman in the general economy? well, it is positive, certainly. so, in this case, knowing that i will be paying more in taxes has caused me to invest in something that i might not have invested in, which in turn spurs more economic growth. but before you assert that this is a ridiculous example, let me also add that i would not do this move unless i thought i was growing. in other words, it is GROWTH that spurs spending for businesses, not the other way around. ultimately, it relies on consumers to spend, which brings us back to square one.

in either case, Romney's assertion is bogus. the consumer is king, so cutting my taxes won't do a damned thing to create jobs. i do far LESS consuming per dollar earned than most Americans.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2012 15:30:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2012 15:23:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I did answer it...yes they can. Have the cuts in the past done so, is a different question. If the tax cuts the Reps propose are done correctly, which they aren't set up to do from what I've heard (although I haven't heard a very detailed plan), then yes they can spur growth. Will they spur growth is unfortunately a multi-factor issue that is impossible to forsee, much the same as saying "More stimulus spending will pull us out of the recession."

again, i am not asking you if they can. when Mitt Romney says "i am going to cut taxes...." his next line is not "which CAN spur growth". his next line is "which SPURS GROWTH". that is not stating a conditional fact, a dependent fact, but an absolute truth.

but i can see that i am going to keep getting this conditional response from you, so i will take it as my wife does. maybe means no.

And I answered that as well: If Romney does what he says, the way its set up, no it probbaly won't spur growth. In fact, if it ended up spurring growth, I'd look for other factors for such growth.

The fact that you are so adamant that cuts never spur growth makes you sound just as obstinant as Romney, though. There are just as many studies out there showing tax cuts leading to growth, which of course have been debunked, and then the debunked ones are de-debunked, etc.

The fact is, no one thing can lead to economic growth, because there's too much shit happening all at once. But some things can help lead to, or boost, growth, and I believe proper tax cuts can help do so.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Honestly I don't think tax policy matters as much to the economy as either side would like to give it credit for. The economy boomed under Clinton because businesses were figuring out how to monetize the internet. That's it. His policies would have barely made a dent one way or the other. He could have spent 8 years diddling interns in the oval office and passing no tax policy whatsoever, the economy was going to boom. Enter Lil Bush, who came in as that boom became a bubble, then the bubble popped. His tax policies weren't going to make much of a difference either. There's always a hangover after a good party, and he happened to be in office when we went through the internet hangover stage. Luckily it didn't last long, because the wizards on Wall Street figured out how to make a friggin killing off of bad mortgages, and we had a real estate bubble. Again, the economy was going to do great for a while there regardless of who was in office or what tax policies he passed. Then Obama comes into office during the real estate hangover. His policies aren't going to matter for a couple years either because we're still hungover from the aftermath of the real estate bash.

That's two straight decades of policy not mattering and the economy doing whatever it's going to do regardless of who's in office. Now here we are in an election trying to decide which one man is going to be "better" for the economy. We're idiots. Recent history has shown that it won't matter much one way or the other.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2012 16:11:43 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2012 15:30:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again, i am not asking you if they can. when Mitt Romney says "i am going to cut taxes...." his next line is not "which CAN spur growth". his next line is "which SPURS GROWTH". that is not stating a conditional fact, a dependent fact, but an absolute truth.

but i can see that i am going to keep getting this conditional response from you, so i will take it as my wife does. maybe means no.

And I answered that as well: If Romney does what he says, the way its set up, no it probbaly won't spur growth. In fact, if it ended up spurring growth, I'd look for other factors for such growth.

The fact that you are so adamant that cuts never spur growth makes you sound just as obstinant as Romney, though.

i am quite obstinate when i think i have the data to make my point. the onus then passes to Romney and others to PROVE that it does. i have been studying this a LONG time, jk. a LOT longer than this study has been around. i have endured much worse insults than being compared to Romney. someone compared me to Bush once.

There are just as many studies out there showing tax cuts leading to growth, which of course have been debunked, and then the debunked ones are de-debunked, etc.

that is what is fascinating about it, jk. i looked. you can look too. please- LOOK- and tell me what you find.

The fact is, no one thing can lead to economic growth, because there's too much shit happening all at once. But some things can help lead to, or boost, growth, and I believe proper tax cuts can help do so.

i am not sure that this is quite true. i think there are several causal factors for economic growth. but that is beyond the scope of this discussion, which the impact of taxes on economic growth.