thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 1, 2020 15:07:19 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.
Was that because of decreased tax revenue or increased GDP? I always struggle when both the numerator and denominator change. It just seems more complex than high taxes bad, low taxes good.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 1, 2020 16:55:02 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. Not just balanced the budget, but as I recall projected surpluses at the time were so large that we could have paid off the entire debt in fairly short order. But as Republicans then and now are wont to do, they gave away all of the money and then more before the projected surpluses even materialized. Morons.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 1, 2020 23:08:37 GMT -5
It should also be noted that George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton deserve some credit here. Bush was correct in his 1980 claims that Reagan was engaging in "voodoo economics." He set that belief aside as Reagan's vice-president, and memorably made the ill-fated "no new taxes" pledge in the runup to the 1988 election. He ultimately decided to try reducing the deficit he had inherited. As I recall, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and refused to go along with reduced spending unless increased taxes were part of the deal. Bush agreed, and was viewed as having broken his pledge. It may have cost him the election in 1992. Clinton followed, and his 1993 budget both increased taxes and renewed the spending caps instituted under Bush. The deal was hard-fought, and only a large Congressional majority allowed it to pass without a single Republican vote. That deal allowed for both the economic boom of the '90s and the 1998 balancing of the budget for the first time in 30 years. Rising surpluses in 1999 and 2000 were leading us further back to fiscal responsibility...until George W. Bush f***ed everything up again. I do not ever lump George H.W. Bush in with the economic disasters of Reagan and Bush II, and now Trump. Bush Sr. was by all accounts I am aware of a good, decent, honorable, and courageous man and public servant. If only his boss and his son were the same.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on Sept 3, 2020 18:13:04 GMT -5
...and it looks like the 'tank' may have begun
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 7:57:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 8:09:53 GMT -5
...and it looks like the 'tank' may have begun And it's Haitian's fault. He started it.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,343
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 4, 2020 14:19:57 GMT -5
...and it looks like the 'tank' may have begun And it's Haitian's fault. He started it. TheHaitian
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 4, 2020 14:58:31 GMT -5
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Sept 8, 2020 23:32:57 GMT -5
And it's Haitian's fault. He started it. TheHaitianOops... did I do that? 🤪
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 9, 2020 6:29:07 GMT -5
|
|