Bush tax cut analysis
 

Any way you slice it, there's very little correlation between lowering tax rates and spurring economic growth. However you want to measure it - GDP, employment rate, personal income growth - none of them show a clear correlation. But yet this old canard is trotted out time and time again.

The Laffer Curve is bunk and always has been.

You must feel very lonely living in Houston.

Like a Jew in Berlin circa 1942

Is that to say that promises of tax breaks always seem to fly around when the elections are a'comin' up? I've begun to wonder why people even cheer that old line anymore. :-?

Thinking takes energy. It's fare easyer to just accept politicians claims at face value.

I always seem to overlook that. :)

Other than the fact it has worked everytime it has been tried.

You'd never get a Democrat to agree with it. Socialism has to be paid for somehow... :DL

[citation needed]

Oh look, I have one!

http://img.slate.com/media/86/marginalGrowth.jpg

Man those dark dark days of 90% tax rates in the 50's sure put a damper on GDP....err....wait....it was still between 3-4%

And look at all the jobs created when tax rates are cut!

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_emp.gif

Wishing something were so doesn't make it so. I have data. You have talking points. You lose.

I know I dont even know why I bother.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

On the other hand I don't see why taxation and the economy are compared at all. The only reason for taxes to exist is that government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want any kind of government programs at all we have to have some taxes.

But my opinion is that they should always be considered a necessary evil, and only used where absolutely needed. Politicians like to come up with programs that will make them look good, and then force others to pay for them later.

"It is no contradiction—the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
—John F. Kennedy, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President; January 21, 1963

You answered your own question Steve.

Sure taxes are needed to keep essential services up and running like fire and rescue, etc.

But you put more tax burden on a society that has the highest percentage of pepole on food stamps. More pepole in the 'poverty level'. Well Im sure you can see where this is a losing propisition.

"Essential" services not crap like teaching Africans how to wash their genetailia.

That analysis is rubbish.

Look at revenue as a % of GDP. It remains remarkably constant in the face of changes to the marginal tax rates.

When the top marginal rate dropped in the early 80s (hugely dropped from a top rate ~70%), tax revenues initially fell by a percent or two, then came back up.

The goal should always be to have the very lowest rate of taxation possible to support spending that is required. Required as in mandated by the Constitution. Defense. Interstate trade, perhaps. Entitlement spending is pretty indefensible constitutionally. I'm fine with a "safety net." That's great, but really look at the analogy. You put safety nets up where people MIGHT fall. You don't sting them up, then push every single person nearby off into the nets. The vast majority of Americans should never see any "safety net" money. None. It should be a fraction of what it is now, only designed to protect the people who have nothing else.

Spending needs to be cut, period. Current spending as a % of GDP is grossly higher than it should be, and the problem is not the discretionary budget, but "programatic" spending (entitlements).

Something tells me you dont have it that bad :nope:

At any rate we have learned that deep tax cuts dont spur the economy.


we have also learned that taxing peoples asses off and bailing out big business fat cats with the money doesnt do it either.

so what is your solution guys?