CNBC 17 Sep 2012

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, but may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress — shows that “there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49059989


After 32 years of Republican tax cuts for the rich that only increase the national debt this should be obvious. Unfortunately, nothing is obvious to those who strongly want to believe what is not true.

 

/sarcasm/

Well color me shocked.

/end sarcasm/

 

Yes, but it makes the rich happy.. :excited:

 

It makes the rich find better way to shelter money or send it off shore.

But this is what has happened because of Obama's failed policy...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49031991

 

Low taxes only benefit smaller countries that can get in massive amounts of outside money without providing benefits to those people.

 

OH GOODNESS,,lets see here;

1) Across-the-board tax rate reductions in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929.


2) In 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25 percent to a maximum of 63 percent, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79 percent later in the decade. The 1930s, to put it mildly, are not remembered as one of the American economy's better decades.

3) Across-the-board tax rate reductions introduced by President John F. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with substantially lower taxes on savings and investment, are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.

4) The Johnson surtax, enacted in 1968 during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the inflation-induced bracket creep of the 1970s (subjecting taxpayers to higher rates even though their real incomes had not changed), resulted in a decade of stagflation.

5) Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs.

6) The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush and Bill Clinton, are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the average family's income.

 

On July 19th in the year 1938, at 2:54 p.m., Distant Lover invented a time travel machine. He used it to travel forward to the year 2012. Once he arrived in the future he began telling people about several new economic theories. No one has had the heart to tell him that history has proven his theories wrong.

 

From 1920 to 1928 unemployment declined by one percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

In 1921 the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars was $5,758. In 1929 it was $6,752.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

This represents a growth of 17.26 percent.

((6,752 - 5,758 ) / 5,758 ) x 100 = 17.26

http://www.marshu.com/articles/calculate-percentage-increase-decrease-percent-calculator.php

 

I have already calculated the rate of economic growth from 1921 to 1929.

Let's calculate the comparable rate of growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first four years.

Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. The per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars was $4,804. Four years later it was $6,423.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

The increase was 33.7 percent.

((6,423 - 4,804 ) / 4,804 ) x 100 ) = 33.7

http://www.marshu.com/articles/calculate-percentage-increase-decrease-percent-calculator.php

 

For all you people that want high taxes in the USA.

Screw you guys I'm going to Bulgaria where its only 10% income and 0% on dividends received.

 

In 1963 the top tax rate was 91 percent. In 1964 that was lowered to 77 percent. In 1965 that was lowered to 70 percent, so let's use 1965 as our reference point.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Per capita domestic product increased until 1973. The following year there was a decline.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

So, basically we are talking about a period of economic growth lasting 8 years.

In 1963 the top tax rate was 91 percent. From 1950 it had fluctuated between that and 92 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

From the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 to the election of George W. Bush in 2000, which is to say nine years, the per capita gross domestic product also grew.

 

I have already documented that the per capita gross domestic product continued to grow until 1974, when it began to decline. The unemployment rate also declined until 1974.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

The stagflation of the 1970s was due to increases in the price of oil caused by the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973, and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

 

During the Reagan Recession of 1982 the per capita gross domestic declined to lower than it was during Jimmy Carter's last year in office.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

According to The Wall Street Journal, during the Reagan administration an average of 2,000,000 jobs were created per year. That was lower than the 2,600,000 jobs created per year during the Carter administration, and much lower than the 2,900,000 jobs created per year during the Clinton administration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

According to the Congressional Budget Office real after tax income for nearly half the country declined under Reagan.

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698

And lets not forget about the increase in the national debt under Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...erms#Changes_in_debt_by_political_affiliation

 

In 1990 the top tax rate increased to 31 percent. There was a further increase to 39.6 percent in 1993.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

In 1990 the per capita gross domestic product was $26,890 in terms of 1996 collars. It declined in 1991, and then resumed a growth it continued until George W. Bush's first year in office.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

When Bill Clinton was in office an average of 2,900,000 jobs were created per year. That is the highest number on record.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

How have my theories been proven wrong? I document my assertions. Can you document yours?

 

A government study said cutting taxes doesn't improve the economy?


This, is shocking news!:excited:

 

Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to see that in every case you list, it was the failed policies of the President/government before that caused things like the Great Depression to happen. This is not something you can argue against. They teach it to high school kids as a historical fact for Christ's sake!


You have so little grasp on the history of YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY that you should not be allowed to call yourself an American.

Except it's the failed policies of your pathetic group that have proven your theories wrong, you dipshit.

Your sprawled out joke of an area wouldn't even exist if it weren't for FDR. It's hilarious that you don't even know that.

 

i have long said that reducing the tax rates for the wealrhy was the wrong way to get anything done in a weak economy
if we as a nation decrease the taxes on those that can actualy afford to pay a bit more and increase them or even keep the rates at current levels for the people that arent as able to pay the amount they are already paying then they have no expendable funds to promote the local economy which fuels the state economy and even the federal economy

homeownership is a driving for for the economic recovery of any nation
renters pay into a system that allows for someone to pay and pay everymonth and never gain any level of equity(read as futility)
selfrespect and a sence of moral humanity serves to boost the morale and the will of people
the happier the people are the more willing they are to work and to play
the more they work the more they earn, the more they earn the more they can spend

if the "lower and middle classes" can spend money they create jobs
governments cannot create jobs

 

and if I want, i can show you a study that say's bummble bees can' fly.

Too bad the bees didn't read it. buy i do have to wonder...how much did congress spend on THIS unknown beaurocratic boondogle

 

Except this was already common sense.