thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 30, 2020 16:34:16 GMT -5
In the Reagan years they reduced taxes on the higher-income taxpayers, saying it would force Congress to come to terms with its rampant spending, but neither party had the will to reduce spending so the deficits increased with the lower revenue. The Trump years have brought the same thing, tax cuts for the wealthy but no reduced spending. Maybe we try reducing spending first, and then we decide we can cut revenue? Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years. The federal government cannot declare bankruptcy under currently existing law. It can print money, though, and borrow from itself. There are only two places any meaningful spending cuts can happen - Health and Human Services and the Military. It will take some bold non-partisan sacrifices to get the political gonads to do substantial cuts to either of these.
|
|
irishpad
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Aug 30, 2020 16:36:20 GMT -5
It drives me crazy knowing that in all the Democratic administrations since Carter, the deficit has been less than under Republican administrations. It's nuts that the PR is the exact opposite.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 30, 2020 18:15:21 GMT -5
I'm literally waiting for some chaos in the markets around the time of the election. JMHO. The airlines can't layoff until Oct. I'm guessing maybe some other companies are in the same boat. The travel industry is starting to switch furloughs to layoffs - I saw that mgm in Vegas laid off in the five figures. The Orlando tourist industry is doing it in waves - they're keeping a lot on furlough in hopes attendance increases but some of em are paying furloughed employees health benefits so if they don't go up enough eventually the companies will cut that expense. After a short decrease, Florida's unemployment numbers are going back up. The MGM announced plans to lay off 18,000 people. Just the first of many strip casino layoffs, I expect.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,157
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Aug 31, 2020 6:38:36 GMT -5
In the Reagan years they reduced taxes on the higher-income taxpayers, saying it would force Congress to come to terms with its rampant spending, but neither party had the will to reduce spending so the deficits increased with the lower revenue. The Trump years have brought the same thing, tax cuts for the wealthy but no reduced spending. Maybe we try reducing spending first, and then we decide we can cut revenue? Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years. Trick-down economics will never work. It is a flawed theory.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,591
|
Post by CCL on Aug 31, 2020 10:11:24 GMT -5
It drives me crazy knowing that in all the Democratic administrations since Carter, the deficit has been less than under Republican administrations. It's nuts that the PR is the exact opposite. What is PR?
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Aug 31, 2020 11:00:04 GMT -5
Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years.
Actually, supply-side economics worked well for Jack Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump. The Media wanted to write controversial articles - but they didn't grasp the math so they created pejorative names (eg, trickle-down) and wrote their versions of 'political failure'. And in general, we are not a pro-math culture - so the public is easily fooled by newspaper editorials.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,707
|
Post by seriousthistime on Aug 31, 2020 12:06:26 GMT -5
I guess the experts were easily fooled too? "The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse-and-sparrow theory", writing:Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'Galbraith claimed that the horse-and-sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[21] While running against Ronald Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush had derided the trickle-down approach as "voodoo economics" In the 1992 presidential election, independent candidate Ross Perot also referred to trickle-down economics "political voodoo".In the same election during a presidential town hall debate, Bill Clinton said:What I want you to understand is the national debt is not the only cause of [declining economic conditions in America]. It is because America has not invested in its people. It is because we have not grown. It is because we've had 12 years of trickle-down economics. We've gone from first to twelfth in the world in wages. We've had four years where we’ve produced no private-sector jobs. Most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago.A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but it instead tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes, referring to the problematic policies as "Reagan-style trickle-down economics," and "a trickle-down, financial-sector-driven policy regime."In 2016, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglietz wrote that the post-World War II evidence does not support trickle-down economics, but rather "trickle-up economics" whereby more money in the pockets of the poor or the middle benefits everyone.A 2019 study in the Journal of Political Economy found, contrary to trickle-down theory, that "the positive relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and that the effect of tax cuts for the top 10 percent on employment growth is small."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
|
|
irishpad
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Aug 31, 2020 12:13:22 GMT -5
It drives me crazy knowing that in all the Democratic administrations since Carter, the deficit has been less than under Republican administrations. It's nuts that the PR is the exact opposite. What is PR? Public Relations
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,451
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 31, 2020 12:19:35 GMT -5
Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years.
Actually, supply-side economics worked well for Jack Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump. The Media wanted to write controversial articles - but they didn't grasp the math so they created pejorative names (eg, trickle-down) and wrote their versions of 'political failure'. And in general, we are not a pro-math culture - so the public is easily fooled by newspaper editorials.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,364
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 31, 2020 12:31:21 GMT -5
I guess it depends on if the consequences of supply-side economics were the ones you (generic you) thought were best for United States. I'm guessing those who think it worked just fine are OK with the consequences of it. It did what they thought and wanted to happen.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,356
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Aug 31, 2020 12:38:03 GMT -5
Don't know about your own communities, but trickle-down economics has been an epic failure here. (Yes, you can blame COVID for part of our problems now, but which president didn't think it was going to be a big deal?)
Unemployment was very high during the Reagan Admin, and right now there are plenty of people out of work, too. Perhaps the top 1% has raked in money, as they were given the gift that keeps on giving, but I assure you that money did not end up in the hands of the middle class, nor the poor. The rich merely padded their bank accounts.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 31, 2020 12:40:27 GMT -5
If you want proof of how well supply-side economics works, look at Kansas under Brownback. One study showed that the economy grew far less than it would have without the tax cuts, while employment also grew less than it would have if the cuts had not been enacted. It was so bad that the Republican legislature not only repealed the tax cuts, but subsequently overrode Brownback's veto of the rollback. Alternatively, look at California, where taxes were raised and the state's economy boomed, rather than suffering the "economic suicide" predicted by supply-siders.
Ronald Reagan's embrace of supply-side theory and the corresponding explosion of the national debt (along with the total commitment to it of future generations of Republicans) is the biggest reason, and indeed the only one necessary, to conclude that his presidency was a disaster for us and our future. Republicans before Reagan had at least some credibility on the idea of fiscal conservatism. That died with Reagan. F*** him.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Aug 31, 2020 12:51:06 GMT -5
Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years.
Actually, supply-side economics worked well for Jack Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump. The Media wanted to write controversial articles - but they didn't grasp the math so they created pejorative names (eg, trickle-down) and wrote their versions of 'political failure'. And
in general, we are not a pro-math culture - so the public is easily fooled by newspaper editorials.
[ On chart looks like debt went up from about 30% to 50% of GDP under Reagan (20%) down under Clinton increased slightly under Bush2 but rapid rise during Obama years, Trump not improving but no rapid rise ( likely Covid changes not in chart)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,451
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 31, 2020 12:56:08 GMT -5
[ On chart looks like deficit went down under Clinton but rapid rise during Obama years, Trump not improving but no rapid rise ( likely Covid changes not in chart) The chart isn't deficit, it is debt as percentage of GDP. And yes, OBAMA!! Happen to have any memory of what Obama inherited from Bush?
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Aug 31, 2020 13:02:50 GMT -5
[ On chart looks like deficit went down under Clinton but rapid rise during Obama years, Trump not improving but no rapid rise ( likely Covid changes not in chart) The chart isn't deficit, it is debt as percentage of GDP. And yes, OBAMA!! Happen to have any memory of what Obama inherited from Bush? Changed my error from deficit to debt and yeah economy was in tank from financial crisis under Bush But that’s still an enormous change from 60% to 100% and Reagan inherited a crap economy from Carter
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 31, 2020 13:03:08 GMT -5
Ah yes, add a war or two that was off the books, plus the economic implosion fondly called the great recession, but blame it the guy it was handed off to. It's like a game of economic hot potato.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,451
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 31, 2020 13:18:56 GMT -5
The chart isn't deficit, it is debt as percentage of GDP. And yes, OBAMA!! Happen to have any memory of what Obama inherited from Bush? Changed my error from deficit to debt and yeah economy was in tank from financial crisis under Bush But that’s still an enormous change from 60% to 100% and Reagan inherited a crap economy from Carter There was a fundamental economic change taking place in the 1970's and the Reagan response was to cut revenue and pull out the national credit card.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 31, 2020 13:37:19 GMT -5
It drives me crazy knowing that in all the Democratic administrations since Carter, the deficit has been less than under Republican administrations. It's nuts that the PR is the exact opposite. The biggest problem is that the public as a whole...is stupid. What is worse, is that far too many not only wallow in their ignorance, but seemingly take pride in it. Anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge in almost any form. Simple ideas for simpletons, and no matter if they are true or not. Repeat it often enough and it becomes true for them. That is also how we end up with a President Trump. An informed and thoughtful electorate would never have chosen such a corrupt and boorish oaf as that.
|
|
irishpad
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Aug 31, 2020 15:19:12 GMT -5
It drives me crazy knowing that in all the Democratic administrations since Carter, the deficit has been less than under Republican administrations. It's nuts that the PR is the exact opposite. The biggest problem is that the public as a whole...is stupid. What is worse, is that far too many not only wallow in their ignorance, but seemingly take pride in it. Anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge in almost any form. Simple ideas for simpletons, and no matter if they are true or not. Repeat it often enough and it becomes true for them. That is also how we end up with a President Trump. An informed and thoughtful electorate would never have chosen such a corrupt and boorish oaf as that. I do want to thank you for the chart on the debt/GNP, that was informative for me. Thanks
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,707
|
Post by seriousthistime on Aug 31, 2020 19:42:02 GMT -5
Duplicate post.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 31, 2020 19:42:55 GMT -5
The biggest problem is that the public as a whole...is stupid. What is worse, is that far too many not only wallow in their ignorance, but seemingly take pride in it. Anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge in almost any form. Simple ideas for simpletons, and no matter if they are true or not. Repeat it often enough and it becomes true for them. That is also how we end up with a President Trump. An informed and thoughtful electorate would never have chosen such a corrupt and boorish oaf as that. I do want to thank you for the chart on the debt/GNP, that was informative for me. Thanks Think that was bill.
|
|
irishpad
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
Posts: 1,175
|
Post by irishpad on Aug 31, 2020 20:47:27 GMT -5
I do want to thank you for the chart on the debt/GNP, that was informative for me. Thanks Think that was bill. You're right, but you guys look the same. lol Thanks billisonboard
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 31, 2020 23:29:45 GMT -5
Trickle-down economics did not work in the Reagan years, and it has not worked in the Trump years.
Actually, supply-side economics worked well for Jack Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump. The Media wanted to write controversial articles - but they didn't grasp the math so they created pejorative names (eg, trickle-down) and wrote their versions of 'political failure'. And in general, we are not a pro-math culture - so the public is easily fooled by newspaper editorials.
Just utter bullshit Phil. Any economic sizzle post Reagan, W, and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy was due to massive deficit spending, especially in the defense sector, and loss of needed tax revenues. How else can you explain the near tripling of the debt under Reagan and the doubling again under Bush. Then throw in the $2 trillion Trump was creating even before Covid. You Repo-cons are liars and have been deficit growing like drunken sailors since 1981. It’s how you plan on drowning us in the Grover Norquist bathtub.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 1, 2020 8:39:19 GMT -5
Just utter bullshit Phil. Any economic sizzle post Reagan, W, and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy was due to massive deficit spending, especially in the defense sector, and loss of needed tax revenues. How else can you explain the near tripling of the debt under Reagan and the doubling again under Bush. Then throw in the $2 trillion Trump was creating even before Covid. You Repo-cons are liars and have been deficit growing like drunken sailors since 1981. It’s how you plan on drowning us in the Grover Norquist bathtub. First, you need to understand the goal of supply-side economics. "Debt" is but one of the metrics, the primary purpose of supply-side is to optimize the federal tax rate to optimize tax revenue. Sometimes you lower the composite tax rate, sometimes you raise it. You draw a Laffer Curve and adjust it up/down to reach a derivative of zero (optimum revenue).
As for who ran up the biggest debt, Obama is the clear winner - the debt went straight up for the entire 8 years. But that doesn't make him a bad president - he had a couple national emergencies that needed to be addressed, regardless of the cost. Same with the pandemic - a national emergency that needed to be addressed, regardless of the effect on the economy.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,451
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 1, 2020 8:51:24 GMT -5
Just utter bullshit Phil. Any economic sizzle post Reagan, W, and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy was due to massive deficit spending, especially in the defense sector, and loss of needed tax revenues. How else can you explain the near tripling of the debt under Reagan and the doubling again under Bush. Then throw in the $2 trillion Trump was creating even before Covid. You Repo-cons are liars and have been deficit growing like drunken sailors since 1981. It’s how you plan on drowning us in the Grover Norquist bathtub. First, you need to understand the goal of supply-side economics. "Debt" is but one of the metrics, the primary purpose of supply-side is to optimize the federal tax rate to optimize tax revenue. Sometimes you lower the composite tax rate, sometimes you raise it. You draw a Laffer Curve and adjust it up/down to reach a derivative of zero (optimum revenue).
As for who ran up the biggest debt, Obama is the clear winner - the debt went straight up for the entire 8 years. But that doesn't make him a bad president - he had a couple national emergencies that needed to be addressed, regardless of the cost. Same with the pandemic - a national emergency that needed to be addressed, regardless of the effect on the economy.
And Reagan's excuse?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 1, 2020 10:01:30 GMT -5
Just utter bullshit Phil. Any economic sizzle post Reagan, W, and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy was due to massive deficit spending, especially in the defense sector, and loss of needed tax revenues. How else can you explain the near tripling of the debt under Reagan and the doubling again under Bush. Then throw in the $2 trillion Trump was creating even before Covid. You Repo-cons are liars and have been deficit growing like drunken sailors since 1981. It’s how you plan on drowning us in the Grover Norquist bathtub. First, you need to understand the goal of supply-side economics. "Debt" is but one of the metrics, the primary purpose of supply-side is to optimize the federal tax rate to optimize tax revenue. Sometimes you lower the composite tax rate, sometimes you raise it. You draw a Laffer Curve and adjust it up/down to reach a derivative of zero (optimum revenue).
As for who ran up the biggest debt, Obama is the clear winner - the debt went straight up for the entire 8 years. But that doesn't make him a bad president - he had a couple national emergencies that needed to be addressed, regardless of the cost. Same with the pandemic - a national emergency that needed to be addressed, regardless of the effect on the economy.
I specifically didn’t mention the pandemic nor Obama. Trump had already created 2 trillion in new debt prior to. And Obama was saddled with BushCo. failures in both wars and the economy. Laffer has been repudiated simply by looking at the level of debt created while you Repo-Cons created the new American oligarchy where the top 5% own so much and 40 million go to bed with food insecurity every night do to the stagnant wages since 1972. And somehow you think it’s all good.😳
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 1, 2020 10:28:42 GMT -5
Just utter bullshit Phil. Any economic sizzle post Reagan, W, and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy was due to massive deficit spending, especially in the defense sector, and loss of needed tax revenues. How else can you explain the near tripling of the debt under Reagan and the doubling again under Bush. Then throw in the $2 trillion Trump was creating even before Covid. You Repo-cons are liars and have been deficit growing like drunken sailors since 1981. It’s how you plan on drowning us in the Grover Norquist bathtub. First, you need to understand the goal of supply-side economics. "Debt" is but one of the metrics, the primary purpose of supply-side is to optimize the federal tax rate to optimize tax revenue. Sometimes you lower the composite tax rate, sometimes you raise it. You draw a Laffer Curve and adjust it up/down to reach a derivative of zero (optimum revenue).
As for who ran up the biggest debt, Obama is the clear winner - the debt went straight up for the entire 8 years. But that doesn't make him a bad president - he had a couple national emergencies that needed to be addressed, regardless of the cost. Same with the pandemic - a national emergency that needed to be addressed, regardless of the effect on the economy.
You do know that we as a nation have never been on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, right? The point of optimization has been variously estimated, but generally it is assumed to be around 70%. That is not a marginal rate. That is an overall rate. It has to be, to account for the zero revenue at 100% idea. Tax cuts in this country do not pay for themselves. Never have, never will. At best, increased economic activity returns only a small percentage of the foregone revenue. Also, Obama is only the debt "winner" if you go by absolute numbers. An interesting chart shows the percent change vs. predecessor's last budget. Reagan is far and away the worst here, with GWB second. Obama would look even better (and GWB correspondingly worse) if the Bush wars had been on-budget in the first place and if Bush had to pay for the recovery from his own recession. I am an actual fiscal conservative, not a "lip service" fiscal conservative, and believe that the burgeoning national debt is what will ultimately destroy this country. The three worst presidents on that metric are Reagan, Bush II, and Trump. All instituted large, deficit-exploding tax cuts. Reagan is the worst because he started it all. Bush could conceivably have been in position to have our entire national debt paid off if he hadn't f***ed it up. Huge deficits are only the tip of the iceberg for Trump's failures as he has become the worst president in history by pretty much any metric. Change in public debt under recent US presidents
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 1, 2020 11:18:21 GMT -5
This study (and several others) considers the optimal composite tax rate to be about 18 to 20% of GDP. When the high marginal rate was in the 70%n to 90% range, high earners tended to leave the country, purposely earn less, under-report , etc. "From 1951 to 1963, the top U.S. federal tax on individual income was 91–92 percent and the lowest rate was 20 percent, yet revenues from individual income taxes were only 7.5 percent of GDP (OMB 2019: Table 2.3). From 1982 to 1990, the top rate was first reduced to 50 percent and then to 28 percent, yet revenues rose to 8 percent of GDP. The top tax rate was subsequently increased twice — in 1991 and 1993 — climbing to 39.6 percent, yet revenues from 1991 to 1996 fell to 7.7 percent of GDP. Finding a revenue‐maximizing top tax rate is evidently not as easy as it may appear." That result demonstrates how trickle-down works (with or w/o a lowering of GDP)
"The change in debt under recent presidents" isn't a relevant measure when the baseline comes from the previous president's budget. Eg, Clinton did a far better job of controlling the debt than the others and he got a low rating based on that metric.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 1, 2020 11:25:40 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 1, 2020 12:29:45 GMT -5
This study (and several others) considers the optimal composite tax rate to be about 18 to 20% of GDP. When the high marginal rate was in the 70%n to 90% range, high earners tended to leave the country, purposely earn less, under-report , etc. "From 1951 to 1963, the top U.S. federal tax on individual income was 91–92 percent and the lowest rate was 20 percent, yet revenues from individual income taxes were only 7.5 percent of GDP (OMB 2019: Table 2.3). From 1982 to 1990, the top rate was first reduced to 50 percent and then to 28 percent, yet revenues rose to 8 percent of GDP. The top tax rate was subsequently increased twice — in 1991 and 1993 — climbing to 39.6 percent, yet revenues from 1991 to 1996 fell to 7.7 percent of GDP. Finding a revenue‐maximizing top tax rate is evidently not as easy as it may appear." That result demonstrates how trickle-down works (with or w/o a lowering of GDP)
"The change in debt under recent presidents" isn't a relevant measure when the baseline comes from the previous president's budget. Eg, Clinton did a far better job of controlling the debt than the others and he got a low rating based on that metric.
Once again we see a member of the (ahem) fiscally Conservative party grandly supporting the explosion of debt created by the Repo-Cons. As tall guy posited, this is what will destroy and is just part of why I consider the Repo-Cons as anti American. As Tall Guy also pointed out...under W a continuation of the Demo policies from Clinton, we could have balanced the budget. Just think what could have been accomplished.
|
|