Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[Lucky... 0]

Here's my take, recessions / depression can be caused by many things, but what role do taxes play in that? Any, none, a lot, or?

Are you a supply sider that basically states if you make the millionaires into multi-millionaires they will then return the favor by hiring people; if you refuse to make them multi then they will protest and not hire. IOW's, it's leveraging the government to lower taxes or else.

The other side states that if you tax the rich more heavily that that revenue can be used for the 2 main social programs: Social welfare and military welfare. Do increased taxes on the rich create a more prosperous, stable economy?

[shah269 0]

Trickle on economics just doesn't work.
It only works if your average trust fund baby ie Paris Hilton utilizes those funds to reinvest in the US.
Which they usually don't. You give them $500k they go buy an exotic car made in Italy. Great for Italy not so good for Detroit. And if they are going to invest in blue collar odds are they will most likely invest it in a nice developing country where their RIO is greater than it would be if they invested here.
Now tax them and not allow them to hide their funds and use that tax money to hire a few dozen teachers and odds are that newly employed teacher may take their money and reinvest it in supporting the local economy.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Trickle on economics just doesn't work.
It only works if your average trust fund baby ie Paris Hilton utilizes those funds to reinvest in the US.
Which they usually don't. You give them $500k they go buy an exotic car made in Italy. Great for Italy not so good for Detroit. And if they are going to invest in blue collar odds are they will most likely invest it in a nice developing country where their RIO is greater than it would be if they invested here.
Now tax them and not allow them to hide their funds and use that tax money to hire a few dozen teachers and odds are that newly employed teacher may take their money and reinvest it in supporting the local economy.

Without a doubt. Or even if you give it to a freeloader, they will return it immediately; give it to a millionaire via tax breaks or a grant, they often pocket it. The economy works best from both ends, but in times of trouble it works best from the bottom up.

[shah269 0]

If the system is utilized correctly then yes, federal dollars can be effectively utilized to create more federal dollars as well as build a robust economic base.
BUT....ask your self this, who does your government work for? The middle class or the top 1%?
And the answer come in when one asks "How is funding the re-election bids?"

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Rstanley0312 0]

The problem with your argument is what you are classifying as "rich". A millionaire is one thing... I am another and Obama says I am "rich"!

Your argument is full of loaded statements and assumptions.... if you stick to the facts and re-phrase to include those Obama is going to tax the shit out of then you have a different situation. i would argue that my income bracket in the US is responsible for a large percentage of spending in the US along with the charitable giving. So I ask you..... why am I considered rich and why do I have to pay so much in taxes for a bunch of idiots that could not run a 3rd grade talent show effectivly?

P.s. I do spend my money in my country. Actually I have always driven an american car!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The problem with your argument is what you are classifying as "rich". A millionaire is one thing... I am another and Obama says I am "rich"!

I realize you're one of those guys that turns every thread into Obama hate, but I'm not limiting anything from or to Obama. In fact, it's ridiculous to bring Obama into this as he has yet to change the tax code.

It's far more relevant to lookat history and see what taxation, high or low, has done to teh economic picture; agree?

Quote

Your argument is full of loaded statements and assumptions.... if you stick to the facts and re-phrase to include those Obama is going to tax the shit out of then you have a different situation.

No, Obama's tax hike and the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts are nothing compared to Hoover thru Eisenhower's tax increases or refusal to lower them. To decry Obama's potential is nuts versus looking backwards and drawing a comparison. You do understand teh taxes of yesteryear, right?

Quote

i would argue that my income bracket in the US is responsible for a large percentage of spending in the US along with the charitable giving.

So you are drawing a connecction between taxing and spending? Please, illustrate how presidents tax as they spend. IOW's, a given president increases spending, so he also increased taxation to cover it. Please illustrate.

Quote

So I ask you..... why am I considered rich and why do I have to pay so much in taxes for a bunch of idiots that could not run a 3rd grade talent show effectivly?

I dunno, are you rich? WHat is your bracket? I guess 'rich' is subjective. BTW, if ya don't wanna get taxed, quit making so much GD money! I guess I could thje neo-con thing and say if ya don't like it, leave. Of course virtually any civilized place you go you'll pay much higher taxes, so I guess it's not so bad.

As for running a 3rd grade show, if you like fiscal responsibility you must have liked GHWB and Clinton, at least comparatively.

Quote

P.s. I do spend my money in my country. Actually I have always driven an american car!

That's really a non-issue anymore, as foreign cars are built here too.

[shah269 0]

Quote

The problem with your argument is what you are classifying as "rich". A millionaire is one thing... I am another and Obama says I am "rich"!

Welcome to my boat. I live in NJ. I make about $100k.
I can afford a condo. A start home here will set you back about $300k+. I consider my self middle to lower middle class. But when you compare my income to my friends in say Florida....well....I'm RICH!

Perhaps if we could have a floating middle class line that is adjusted up or down based on location things would be fair. After all I dish out about 30% in taxes every year.

Now that being said, I have a number of friends who work in NYC for various companies who's one and only job is to assure that the top 1% do not pay taxes. And some of these scams are amazing and perfectly legal and when used correctly reduce if not eliminate any taxes paid by the top 1%.
As one friend put it, "There are no tax shelters for under $100k liquid, so who do you think wrote the tax code?"

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

It's far more relevant to lookat history and see what taxation, high or low, has done to teh economic picture; agree?

Agreed.

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

[Rstanley0312 0]

Oh I know.... the uber rich definitly know what they are doing and I think it is fair for them to pay a bit more. The problem lies with the fact that the middle to upper middle class and how much we are having to pay. I use that term for those making around 100k give or take a few. It is realitive to where you live and I def. feel for you in NJ. 100k there does not go far.


lucky... I am not simply throwing up the self righteous president of ours for no reason.... no I didn't like W. or Clinton. I thought they did some things right but a majority of what they did... especially economically was crap.

Your opinion is just that... an opinion and you have a right to have one but just like a familiar quote around these parts..... "I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong." Obama getting rid of the tax cuts or letting them lapse is the same thing as raising taxes and at the rate he and those on the hill are spending.... taxes will have to go up even more. It will do no good now though because of the amount that has been spent and the more spending that will occur is putting us into a hole that I fear we will never dig out of.....

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[shah269 0]

Speaking with my friends who work for these shelter companies, they predict that at most the top 1% will now only pay 1% more in taxes via the elimination of some loop holes and the lapse of the tax breaks.

Hey as I understand it not even Donald Trump was for the tax cuts. So go figure.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh I know.... the uber rich definitly know what they are doing and I think it is fair for them to pay a bit more.

The top 20% hold 93% of all cash and 85% of all asset. Yea, just a tad bit, barely noticeable disparity - nice sugar coat.

Quote

lucky... I am not simply throwing up the self righteous president of ours for no reason.... no I didn't like W. or Clinton. I thought they did some things right but a majority of what they did... especially economically was crap.

Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy.

Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement.

Clinton:

- Unemp from 7% to <4%

- Market from 3500 to 9800

- Massive GDP increase thru 8 years

- Received 12 years of 250B/yr incr, lowered it every year to 33B his last year

- Received a 290B deficit in 92, left a 236 surplus


So please, please show me where he fucked it all up.

Quote

Obama getting rid of the tax cuts or letting them lapse is the same thing as raising taxes ...

Yes.

Quote

...and at the rate he and those on the hill are spending.... taxes will have to go up even more.

So you are drawing a false connect between taxation and spending. Show me a recent president that spent more and taxed more too. Oh yea, you can't, so quit your false premise.

Quote

It will do no good now though because of the amount that has been spent and the more spending that will occur is putting us into a hole that I fear we will never dig out of.....

That's probably true, we have 2 goats: Reagan and GWB. GHWB and Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, so they did what they could. The debt was 900B in 1981, very manageable, Reagan hammered it by cutting taxes and grossly increasing spending. GWb followed his patten. 2 turds are responsible for virtually all of the countries debt.

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh I know.... the uber rich definitly know what they are doing and I think it is fair for them to pay a bit more.

The top 20% hold 93% of all cash and 85% of all asset. Yea, just a tad bit, barely noticeable disparity - nice sugar coat.

Quote

lucky... I am not simply throwing up the self righteous president of ours for no reason.... no I didn't like W. or Clinton. I thought they did some things right but a majority of what they did... especially economically was crap.

Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy.

Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement.

Clinton:

- Unemp from 7% to <4%

- Market from 3500 to 9800

- Massive GDP increase thru 8 years

- Received 12 years of 250B/yr incr, lowered it every year to 33B his last year

- Received a 290B deficit in 92, left a 236 surplus


So please, please show me where he fucked it all up.

Quote

Obama getting rid of the tax cuts or letting them lapse is the same thing as raising taxes ...

Yes.

Quote

...and at the rate he and those on the hill are spending.... taxes will have to go up even more.

So you are drawing a false connect between taxation and spending. Show me a recent president that spent more and taxed more too. Oh yea, you can't, so quit your false premise.

Quote

It will do no good now though because of the amount that has been spent and the more spending that will occur is putting us into a hole that I fear we will never dig out of.....

That's probably true, we have 2 goats: Reagan and GWB. GHWB and Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, so they did what they could. The debt was 900B in 1981, very manageable, Reagan hammered it by cutting taxes and grossly increasing spending. GWb followed his patten. 2 turds are responsible for virtually all of the countries debt.

It's funny.... you accused me of bringing in Obama but all you want to do is rail on the GOP presidents.... news flash.... I am not a Republican! Your cute little list suggests that Clinton is responsible for things such as where the DOW is..... what a joke! I work with the market for a living. Just as easily as you are willing to throw that out I could easily say the DOW was that high because of what Reagan and Bush Sr. did as policies take time to have an impact..... but you would not like that very much. I actually concede and say that the uber rich should pay more and you tell me I'm "sugar coating"? You sound like you need to just breathe for a second. What is funny is you are the one who is obviously hard core deffensive of the Dem. politicians where asw I can say they did some things right (both sides) and royaly screwed up other things...... case in point Clinton cut the defense budget an insane amount which led to massive cuts in intelligence. If I remember right some really bad things occured after that? Am I blaming him... no but could that of had an impact? Sure....

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
Clinton raises taxes, roaring 90s ensures.
Bush cuts taxes, jacks spending, gets in two wars, economy rides roller coaster.

I don't see a cause and effect here. Maybe that answer is a bit more complicated.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's funny.... you accused me of bringing in Obama but all you want to do is rail on the GOP presidents.... news flash.... I am not a Republican!

Yes, you specified 1 guy who hasn't done thing 1 to the tax code as being the devil, yet you ignore the true asswipes; Reagan and GWB. BTW, you must not be aware that GHWB was a Republican, I constantly give him credit too, as well, Eisenhower was awesome.

Quote

Your cute little list suggests that Clinton is responsible for things such as where the DOW is..... what a joke!

It's just one of many indicators. See, political sciene is a bastard science in that you cannot seperate the independent variable and test it, you cannot run teh same test 1,000 times and make observations. All we can do is make observations based upon what we have. So the market is a relevant indcator and I use it.

Quote

I work with the market for a living. Just as easily as you are willing to throw that out I could easily say the DOW was that high because of what Reagan and Bush Sr. did as policies take time to have an impact.....but you would not like that very much.

Ahhhhhhh, yes, the delayed-impact theory where we just transpose the results where we want like some kind of wordjumble. I do credit GHWB for raising taxes and cutting spending, I didn't in this thread but I constantly do.

Quote

I actually concede and say that the uber rich should pay more and you tell me I'm "sugar coating"?

No, you wrote, "I think it is fair for them to pay a bit more." I provided data to establish your 'bit more' is a joke considering the top 20% hold virtually all of the cash but 7%, which is held by the lower. The uppers do pay most of the taxes and they should pay more. Whenever the gov makes them pay more the country does much better.

Quote

You sound like you need to just breathe for a second.

Meaningless.

Quote

What is funny is you are the one who is obviously hard core deffensive of the Dem. politicians where asw I can say they did some things right (both sides) and royaly screwed up other things......

The Dems, as of late, have been virtually flawless economically, please show me otherwise, I don't need your warm/fuzzy admission, I want info.

Quote

case in point Clinton cut the defense budget an insane amount which led to massive cuts in intelligence. If I remember right some really bad things occured after that? Am I blaming him... no but could that of had an impact? Sure....

If we must tangent frrom tax cuts and their afffect on the economy. And then Bush did what? OBL was pissed when GHWB invavde the Gulf, he did nothing to prevent terrorism, Clinton did nothing and GWB did nothing in the almost 8 months, but he did go on vacation all of Aug 2001. 911 wasn't about cuts in spending, it was about a long-standing arrogant American philosphy that they would never attack us here. We could probably chase it back several decades.

You largely ignored all I wrote, I ask you this one question again:

Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy.

Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement.

Clinton:

- Unemp from 7% to <4%

- Market from 3500 to 9800

- Massive GDP increase thru 8 years

- Received 12 years of 250B/yr incr, lowered it every year to 33B his last year

- Received a 290B deficit in 92, left a 236 surplus


So please, please show me where he fucked it all up.

[shah269 0]

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
.

The 80's were good? That's new to me!

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[BDashe 0]

Quote

Trickle on economics just doesn't work.
It only works if your average trust fund baby ie Paris Hilton utilizes those funds to reinvest in the US.
Which they usually don't. You give them $500k they go buy an exotic car made in Italy. Great for Italy not so good for Detroit. And if they are going to invest in blue collar odds are they will most likely invest it in a nice developing country where their RIO is greater than it would be if they invested here.
Now tax them and not allow them to hide their funds and use that tax money to hire a few dozen teachers and odds are that newly employed teacher may take their money and reinvest it in supporting the local economy.

Jealousy sucks, don't it?

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[kallend 1,658]

Quote

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
.

The 80's were good? That's new to me!

They were good to some (mostly the already wealthy) and rotten to others. The 80s also led to a tripling of the national debt. IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BDashe 0]

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
Clinton raises taxes, roaring 90s ensures.
Bush cuts taxes, jacks spending, gets in two wars, economy rides roller coaster.

I don't see a cause and effect here. Maybe that answer is a bit more complicated.

couldn't agree with you more!!!

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[rhaig 0]

my take on it is that the economy is healthier when people are spending. Lots of people. Not the few rich guys here and there. If $10B gets spent by 100M people, I think it's much better for the economy than if $10B gets spent by 100 people. So what this means is that it's not taxing rich people that helps the economy, but reducing taxes, or getting more money into the pockets of middle & lower class that helps. Now to make such a proposal work, you may have to bump the taxes on upper class a bit in our current system.


I still think that once things get a little better, and people start spending more frequently, we should take a more serious look at the FairTax. Most people only see "sales tax" and stop reading. What I really like about it is that monthly there is a "prebate" sent that is meant to offset the sales tax that is going to be paid that month on necessity items.


If a family of 4 spending currently $1750 per month on necessity items, they'd end up spending about $2274 (with 23% of that being taxes) under the FairTax plan. They would, however, get a check at the beginning of the month for $524 to offset the taxes they'd pay on those items, making their necessities tax-free for their bottom line. (Yes I picked that number to match up with the 524 allowance for a family of 4.)

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.

Roaring 80's? Yea, his contraction of the money supply pushed unemp to 10.8% and the recession lasted years. Unemp never really got low under him. The 80's were roaring for the uber rich, shitty for many.

Quote

Clinton raises taxes, roaring 90s ensures.

Yes, the 90's were the shit, remember the want ads, they were their own newspaper. Jobs were everywhere, wages up, education and housing available. The rich got richer and the poor moved up during that era. We headed off the debt increase and had a huge gov surplus. Sending increased 32% over 8 years and tax receipts were up 72%. That's roaring, the market shot up to 280% of it's original 3500. Show me one ill indicator, yet you want to wash it in with the caustic Regan era that thrippled the debt when the debt was stable as he inherited it? BRILLIANCE.

Quote

Bush cuts taxes, jacks spending, gets in two wars, economy rides roller coaster.

We'll just whitewash it all and call it a push. I would to if my party / ideology was primarily responsible for fucking it all up.

Quote

I don't see a cause and effect here. Maybe that answer is a bit more complicated.

Well then let me help you out, brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

See the chart at the bottom left? Hmmm, look at what happened right before the GD in 25-28.... 25% top tax rate. During that time the top .01% owned as much as the bottom 40%, even more out of whack than now. Then Hoover left them alone but lowered them a hair and 12 mill died and the economy died. Hoover, in his last year, to fix things raised taxes to 63% and FDR raised them more and the economy started to come out of the GD.

Taxes remained high and the war years and post were petty descent. Eisenhower left them high and the debt actually lowered during this time. LBJ lowered them to 70% and tehy stayed about there until fascist Ronnie lowered them in stages: 50%, 38%, 28%. So of course when we get below 40% recessions are likely, below 30% they are imminent. Of course we enjoyed the 1990 recession that last 2+ years.

GHWB raised them a bit and Clinton raised them more which started the healing of the debt/deficit; the economy was great. Then dickhead slashed them and blew spending out which hammered it all.

Tax cuts, my friends, fucks everything up.

[Rstanley0312 0]

No I'm done with this because I have to work..... probably why I do make the money I make.... anyway you have a good day now!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY.

It's funny you loved to rail on Bush for his spending but since President Obama is driving this train you seem ok with it. 1T$ health plan hsould be just another drop in the bucket.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
.

The 80's were good? That's new to me!

They were good to some (mostly the already wealthy) and rotten to others. The 80s also led to a tripling of the national debt. IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY.

Sure, but the title question here was: do tax cuts lead to horrible economic times. Pretty clear counter example. Democrats knock Reagan for the debt; they don't try to knock him for the economy, esp right after Carter. Fortunately Clinton managed to wipe that memory of the 'last Democratic' President.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No I'm done with this because I have to work..... probably why I do make the money I make.... anyway you have a good day now!

Run like the wind.....

Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy.

Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement.

Clinton:

- Unemp from 7% to <4%

- Market from 3500 to 9800

- Massive GDP increase thru 8 years

- Received 12 years of 250B/yr incr, lowered it every year to 33B his last year

- Received a 290B deficit in 92, left a 236 surplus


So please, please show me where he fucked it all up.

[kallend 1,658]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Reagan cut taxes, roaring 80s ensues.
.

The 80's were good? That's new to me!

They were good to some (mostly the already wealthy) and rotten to others. The 80s also led to a tripling of the national debt. IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY.

Sure, but the title question here was: do tax cuts lead to horrible economic times. Pretty clear counter example. Democrats knock Reagan for the debt; they don't try to knock him for the economy, esp right after Carter. .

Except, as GHWB found, living off borrowed money comes back to haunt you in the end. There may be good times for a while, then there is payback time. We are learning that again, right now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.