Can you explain why the economy boomed when the tax rate was 91% on incomes of $300K + in the fifties?
There were so many loopholes the effective rate was much lower, thankfully.
Also, in the 1950s, who was competing against us?
Why Reagan didn't cut taxes on the rich below 50% (boom time) until 2007, when he reduced them to 28.8%, which caused a recession that cost Bush Senior a second term?
I'll assume you meant 1987, and the answer is that policy takes time. Also, his tax reductions didn't cause a recession.
Why the economy boomed when taxes were raised back to 39% in the 2000s?
Probably a little thing called the internet.
Why that tax increase led to the first budget surplus in over 40 years?
There were so many loopholes the effective rate was much lower, thankfully. Even with the loopholes I guarantee you it wasn't below 70 percent.
Also, in the 1950s, who was competing against us? Japan and China began to do so in that decade.
his tax reductions didn't cause a recession. The reduction to 50% didn't cause a recession, nor did it cause any flight on the part of the rich, which proves that the wealthy can be taxed at 50%; the reduction to 28.8% did indeed start off the recession that cost Bush Senior a second term.
Probably a little thing called the internet. That contributed, but the reduction of the deficit contributed as well.
It didn't.
Oh, yes it did--a surplus that was squandered by your brain-damaged buddy Dubya through two wars.
Once again, Jeff, just because you believe it doesn't make it so. It wasn't a matter of cooked books or creative accounting; there was indeed a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's two terms, whether you're willing to believe it or not.
Even with the loopholes I guarantee you it wasn't below 70 percent.
I don't know if I've ever encountered someone so consistently wrong. Its peak in 1963 was 49%, and it was 31% in 1960. (http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=law_pubs)
By the way, the top effective rate for 2014? Estimated to be at 29%. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf)
Japan and China began to do so in that decade.
"Began to" is the key point here. And even then, it wasn't much. If you recall, we had nuked Japan not too much earlier, and China was occupied with Korea.
The reduction to 50% didn't cause a recession, nor did it cause any flight on the part of the rich, which proves that the wealthy can be taxed at 50%
Well, right. The reduction wouldn't have done either of those things. It doesn't prove the wealthy can be taxed at 50%, it simply tells us that the wealthy will be fine with 50% in the context of what it's lowered from.
the reduction to 28.8% did indeed start off the recession that cost Bush Senior a second term.
There's no evidence to support this claim.
That contributed, but the reduction of the deficit contributed as well.
A reduction of the yearly deficit would not, a reduction in the national debt might. We didn't see the latter, though.
With that said, are you arguing the same for Bush in the mid-2000s? Probably not.
Oh, yes it did--a surplus that was squandered by your brain-damaged buddy Dubya through two wars.
I never voted for him, for the record.
Bush increased domestic social spending more than what was spent on the wars, as well. If the surplus was "squandered," it was on social welfare.
Once again, Jeff, just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
As we've shown yet again with your tax fantasies above.
there was indeed a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's two terms, whether you're willing to believe it or not.
This comment is strange, as I wouldn't have disputed it. You must have also forgotten how much I liked Clinton's presidency on a whole, in part because of his fiscal restraint and his willingness to largely keep his hands off the internet.
I did not claim there was no surplus, I said that the tax increase ("it") was not the driver of the surplus ("didn't). You attributed it to the tax increase, which makes no sense given the trajectory of the budget and the spending changes made alongside the Republican House.
No retraction of your other false claims, I assume?
Its peak in 1963 was 49%, and it was 31% in 1960. I can't find anything in this article that supports this contention, although I am pleased to see that for the most part it is a pro-tax article.
There's no evidence to support this claim. What's your evidence to refute it?
Bush increased domestic social spending more than what was spent on the wars, as well. If the surplus was "squandered," it was on social welfare. Spoken like a true hawk. So far both wars have proved disastrous. I take it your contention would be that without the wars the surplus still would have been squandered. That's hogwash and you know it.
Where's your evidence to support your claim? That's how it works.
Spoken like a true hawk. So far both wars have proved disastrous. I take it your contention would be that without the wars the surplus still would have been squandered. That's hogwash and you know it.
Remove the war spending from the Bush-era deficits and see where things end up. Do the math, it's pretty straightforward - you can't balance out the budget and you can't make up the surpluses.
Where's your evidence to support your claim? That's how it works. Sorry, but I asked you first. It's up to you to come back with evidence to refute my claim. THAT'S how it works.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
There were so many loopholes the effective rate was much lower, thankfully.
Also, in the 1950s, who was competing against us?
Why Reagan didn't cut taxes on the rich below 50% (boom time) until 2007, when he reduced them to 28.8%, which caused a recession that cost Bush Senior a second term?
I'll assume you meant 1987, and the answer is that policy takes time. Also, his tax reductions didn't cause a recession.
Why the economy boomed when taxes were raised back to 39% in the 2000s?
Probably a little thing called the internet.
Why that tax increase led to the first budget surplus in over 40 years?
It didn't.
no subject
Even with the loopholes I guarantee you it wasn't below 70 percent.
Also, in the 1950s, who was competing against us?
Japan and China began to do so in that decade.
his tax reductions didn't cause a recession.
The reduction to 50% didn't cause a recession, nor did it cause any flight on the part of the rich, which proves that the wealthy can be taxed at 50%; the reduction to 28.8% did indeed start off the recession that cost Bush Senior a second term.
Probably a little thing called the internet.
That contributed, but the reduction of the deficit contributed as well.
It didn't.
Oh, yes it did--a surplus that was squandered by your brain-damaged buddy Dubya through two wars.
Once again, Jeff, just because you believe it doesn't make it so. It wasn't a matter of cooked books or creative accounting; there was indeed a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's two terms, whether you're willing to believe it or not.
no subject
I don't know if I've ever encountered someone so consistently wrong. Its peak in 1963 was 49%, and it was 31% in 1960. (http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=law_pubs)
By the way, the top effective rate for 2014? Estimated to be at 29%. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf)
Japan and China began to do so in that decade.
"Began to" is the key point here. And even then, it wasn't much. If you recall, we had nuked Japan not too much earlier, and China was occupied with Korea.
The reduction to 50% didn't cause a recession, nor did it cause any flight on the part of the rich, which proves that the wealthy can be taxed at 50%
Well, right. The reduction wouldn't have done either of those things. It doesn't prove the wealthy can be taxed at 50%, it simply tells us that the wealthy will be fine with 50% in the context of what it's lowered from.
the reduction to 28.8% did indeed start off the recession that cost Bush Senior a second term.
There's no evidence to support this claim.
That contributed, but the reduction of the deficit contributed as well.
A reduction of the yearly deficit would not, a reduction in the national debt might. We didn't see the latter, though.
With that said, are you arguing the same for Bush in the mid-2000s? Probably not.
Oh, yes it did--a surplus that was squandered by your brain-damaged buddy Dubya through two wars.
I never voted for him, for the record.
Bush increased domestic social spending more than what was spent on the wars, as well. If the surplus was "squandered," it was on social welfare.
Once again, Jeff, just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
As we've shown yet again with your tax fantasies above.
there was indeed a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's two terms, whether you're willing to believe it or not.
This comment is strange, as I wouldn't have disputed it. You must have also forgotten how much I liked Clinton's presidency on a whole, in part because of his fiscal restraint and his willingness to largely keep his hands off the internet.
no subject
You just did in your previous comment, when you claimed no surplus was created.
no subject
No retraction of your other false claims, I assume?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can't find anything in this article that supports this contention, although I am pleased to see that for the most part it is a pro-tax article.
There's no evidence to support this claim.
What's your evidence to refute it?
Bush increased domestic social spending more than what was spent on the wars, as well. If the surplus was "squandered," it was on social welfare.
Spoken like a true hawk. So far both wars have proved disastrous. I take it your contention would be that without the wars the surplus still would have been squandered. That's hogwash and you know it.
no subject
Where's your evidence to support your claim? That's how it works.
Spoken like a true hawk. So far both wars have proved disastrous. I take it your contention would be that without the wars the surplus still would have been squandered. That's hogwash and you know it.
Remove the war spending from the Bush-era deficits and see where things end up. Do the math, it's pretty straightforward - you can't balance out the budget and you can't make up the surpluses.
no subject
Sorry, but I asked you first. It's up to you to come back with evidence to refute my claim. THAT'S how it works.
no subject
lol
no subject