Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why ed. I am impressed. I did not think you could even spell science.Corporations
please stop acting as if the Reagan administration was a repeatable scientific experiment with one variable. Do you know how stupid that is????? Do you even know what science is??
contractors spend money[tax dollars] .
how is this a stimulus rather than a depression inducing bubble????????????????????
See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??
Of course it was a simple example, ed. I was talking to YOU.
Here. Study this. It is a scientific study, and itwill explain your malfunction:
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Obviously businesses don't pay their full tax liability, so the answer is in deductible investments, including hiring. These are called tax shelters.higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring
how is this possible when higher taxes mean the private sector has less money with which to hire ???????????????????????
My thoughts on this are simply that granted targeted deductions for reinvesment within the tax code, cycling tax rate increases during an expansion will create more jobs in ratio to the GDP than if the rate were par or cut. I say pair that with tax relief/cuts in a recession.For lots of reasons, ed me boy. I know you will not believe this, but Reagan did.higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring
how is this possible when higher taxes mean the private sector has less money with which to hire ???????????????????????
So try to follow this. Corporations and large companies are either not hiring much, or they are hiring over seas. As a a result, increasing taxes has very, very little effect on hiring. Just as it did for Reagan.
But, gov gets money. Deficits decrease proportionally. Then, the gov does stimulus projects. Hires contractors to fix roads, fix dams, etc, etc.
So, employment went up, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! Just as it did for Reagan.
Then these employees of contractors spend money in the general economy. Demand goes up.(I know, ed, you have a very hard time understanding this concept. But it was just the same as in the Reagan admin.) Since demand is increasing, the companies who made the stuff the contractors workers bought have to hire to keep up with demand. Just as in the Reagan admin. So, increasing taxes decreased unemployment, just as it did for Reagan.
All of which you will never admit, because you are a conservative tool.
Tax cuts during a recession will only lead to more unemployment. Why do I say this: 1. History I can not find a time when tax decreases led to decreased unemployment. I can find times when tax increases were the driving force for reducing unemployment and 2. Theory - if you decrease taxes, then you decrease gov jobs and gov projects and corresponding private jobs. That leads to more of the same. We have seen over the years that tax increases, particularly to wealthy or to corporations, do not have a major impact on job creation, as producers do not produce if demand does not increase.My thoughts on this are simply that granted targeted deductions for reinvesment within the tax code, cycling tax rate increases during an expansion will create more jobs in ratio to the GDP than if the rate were par or cut. I say pair that with tax relief/cuts in a recession.For lots of reasons, ed me boy. I know you will not believe this, but Reagan did.how is this possible when higher taxes mean the private sector has less money with which to hire ???????????????????????
So try to follow this. Corporations and large companies are either not hiring much, or they are hiring over seas. As a a result, increasing taxes has very, very little effect on hiring. Just as it did for Reagan.
But, gov gets money. Deficits decrease proportionally. Then, the gov does stimulus projects. Hires contractors to fix roads, fix dams, etc, etc.
So, employment went up, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! Just as it did for Reagan.
Then these employees of contractors spend money in the general economy. Demand goes up.(I know, ed, you have a very hard time understanding this concept. But it was just the same as in the Reagan admin.) Since demand is increasing, the companies who made the stuff the contractors workers bought have to hire to keep up with demand. Just as in the Reagan admin. So, increasing taxes decreased unemployment, just as it did for Reagan.
All of which you will never admit, because you are a conservative tool.
Tax cuts during a recession will only lead to more unemployment. Why do I say this: 1. History I can not find a time when tax decreases led to decreased unemployment. I can find times when tax increases were the driving force for reducing unemployment and 2. Theory - if you decrease taxes, then you decrease gov jobs and gov projects and corresponding private jobs. That leads to more of the same. We have seen over the years that tax increases, particularly to wealthy or to corporations, do not have a major impact on job creation, as producers do not produce if demand does not increase.My thoughts on this are simply that granted targeted deductions for reinvesment within the tax code, cycling tax rate increases during an expansion will create more jobs in ratio to the GDP than if the rate were par or cut. I say pair that with tax relief/cuts in a recession.For lots of reasons, ed me boy. I know you will not believe this, but Reagan did.
So try to follow this. Corporations and large companies are either not hiring much, or they are hiring over seas. As a a result, increasing taxes has very, very little effect on hiring. Just as it did for Reagan.
But, gov gets money. Deficits decrease proportionally. Then, the gov does stimulus projects. Hires contractors to fix roads, fix dams, etc, etc.
So, employment went up, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! Just as it did for Reagan.
Then these employees of contractors spend money in the general economy. Demand goes up.(I know, ed, you have a very hard time understanding this concept. But it was just the same as in the Reagan admin.) Since demand is increasing, the companies who made the stuff the contractors workers bought have to hire to keep up with demand. Just as in the Reagan admin. So, increasing taxes decreased unemployment, just as it did for Reagan.
All of which you will never admit, because you are a conservative tool.
Then, there is the whole issue of the political/economic world. You need a stimulus in a bad economy, a recession or contraction in the economy. So, how do you do that? Tax decreases to the most helpful of the income catagories - the poor or the middle class, since they will spend what they get in tax savings. Upper classes, or the wealthy, will not tend to spend more. And will not hire, as there is no increased need for their products resulting from tax decreases to the wealthy. And, in general, tax decreases to any income category are not highly stimulative, as some types of spending are. And, if you cut taxes in a downturn, does anyone seriously believe chances of a tax increase during an upturn are likely, given the absolute belief no tax increases, new or old, of the republican party?
So, increase taxes and spend the added revenue on infrastructure, for example.
Tax cuts during a recession will only lead to more unemployment. Why do I say this: 1. History I can not find a time when tax decreases led to decreased unemployment. I can find times when tax increases were the driving force for reducing unemployment and 2. Theory - if you decrease taxes, then you decrease gov jobs and gov projects and corresponding private jobs. That leads to more of the same. We have seen over the years that tax increases, particularly to wealthy or to corporations, do not have a major impact on job creation, as producers do not produce if demand does not increase.My thoughts on this are simply that granted targeted deductions for reinvesment within the tax code, cycling tax rate increases during an expansion will create more jobs in ratio to the GDP than if the rate were par or cut. I say pair that with tax relief/cuts in a recession.For lots of reasons, ed me boy. I know you will not believe this, but Reagan did.
So try to follow this. Corporations and large companies are either not hiring much, or they are hiring over seas. As a a result, increasing taxes has very, very little effect on hiring. Just as it did for Reagan.
But, gov gets money. Deficits decrease proportionally. Then, the gov does stimulus projects. Hires contractors to fix roads, fix dams, etc, etc.
So, employment went up, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! Just as it did for Reagan.
Then these employees of contractors spend money in the general economy. Demand goes up.(I know, ed, you have a very hard time understanding this concept. But it was just the same as in the Reagan admin.) Since demand is increasing, the companies who made the stuff the contractors workers bought have to hire to keep up with demand. Just as in the Reagan admin. So, increasing taxes decreased unemployment, just as it did for Reagan.
All of which you will never admit, because you are a conservative tool.
Then, there is the whole issue of the political/economic world. You need a stimulus in a bad economy, a recession or contraction in the economy. So, how do you do that? Tax decreases to the most helpful of the income catagories - the poor or the middle class, since they will spend what they get in tax savings. Upper classes, or the wealthy, will not tend to spend more. And will not hire, as there is no increased need for their products resulting from tax decreases to the wealthy. And, in general, tax decreases to any income category are not highly stimulative, as some types of spending are. And, if you cut taxes in a downturn, does anyone seriously believe chances of a tax increase during an upturn are likely, given the absolute belief no tax increases, new or old, of the republican party?
So, increase taxes and spend the added revenue on infrastructure, for example.
Tax relief is a stimulus. How did it work for Bush 2, or for Obama? If you are talking about normal business cycles, perhaps. But if you are talking avout a recession of high magnitude, you will not find a time where a general income tax decreases helped unemployment when the rate was high. So, not sure why you believe it will. Moreover, in order to increase the rate in an expansion, you've got to put those rates back down at some point. Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates. You can not lower rates forever.Tax is not some cure-all. It's just something which the government has control of that can be adjusted according to the business cycle. Never 'highly stimulative'. Yes, so when was the last time you saw the highest marginal rates go up?? I think you will find it was 1993.Tax cuts during a recession will only lead to more unemployment. Why do I say this: 1. History I can not find a time when tax decreases led to decreased unemployment. I can find times when tax increases were the driving force for reducing unemployment and 2. Theory - if you decrease taxes, then you decrease gov jobs and gov projects and corresponding private jobs. That leads to more of the same. We have seen over the years that tax increases, particularly to wealthy or to corporations, do not have a major impact on job creation, as producers do not produce if demand does not increase.My thoughts on this are simply that granted targeted deductions for reinvesment within the tax code, cycling tax rate increases during an expansion will create more jobs in ratio to the GDP than if the rate were par or cut. I say pair that with tax relief/cuts in a recession.
Then, there is the whole issue of the political/economic world. You need a stimulus in a bad economy, a recession or contraction in the economy. So, how do you do that? Tax decreases to the most helpful of the income catagories - the poor or the middle class, since they will spend what they get in tax savings. Upper classes, or the wealthy, will not tend to spend more. And will not hire, as there is no increased need for their products resulting from tax decreases to the wealthy. And, in general, tax decreases to any income category are not highly stimulative, as some types of spending are. And, if you cut taxes in a downturn, does anyone seriously believe chances of a tax increase during an upturn are likely, given the absolute belief no tax increases, new or old, of the republican party?
So, increase taxes and spend the added revenue on infrastructure, for example.
Tax relief is a stimulus. Moreover, in order to increase the rate in an expansion, you've got to put those rates back down at some point. Tax is not some cure-all. It's just something which the government has control of that can be adjusted according to the business cycle. Never 'highly stimulative'.
Reagan and HW raised taxes as Republicans.
No.Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates.
No.Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates.
No.Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates.
Rshermr "claims" to have taught economics at the college level yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion...
Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
Rshermr "claims" to have taught economics at the college level yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion...
You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,Rshermr "claims" to have taught economics at the college level yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion...
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.
Rshermr "claims" to have taught economics at the college level yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion...
You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.
Actually, I said no such thing. Again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. The .com bubble happened irrespective of tax increases. As boomuts generally do. But then, your analysis is a simple repeat of the dogma that the right wing expresses.Rshermr "claims" to have taught economics at the college level yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion...
He has this notion in his head that the Dot Com Boom was brought on by Clinton raising taxes and that if we would only raise taxes now that our economy will respond in the same way as back then...even though there is nothing even remotely resembling a Dot Com Boom on the horizon to fuel an expansion of the economy and a tax increase is only going to further dampen the weak recovery we now have.
Bush 2's tax plan does not need me criticizing it. The outcome of the Bush plan was bad enough to not need my criticism. But, I believe you would have to admit that the economy had reached a bad point, unemployment had crept up. The tax decrease did not help. But probably did not hurt much either. That economy had other causes to create the problem that we ran into in 1997 - 98.You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.
You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do. But do not believe in in many cases. Keynsian economics ran into issues that it did not work well with. Stagflation, for example. And the resultant modifications to Keynsian economics, like New Keynsian Economics, Neo Keynsian Economics, Post Keynsian Economics. Fact is, anyone who clings to an economic theory in all cases over the years and with new evidence, is a fool. Or is simply following a policy that helps some group that he believes in helping. As you would be, oldstyle, if you believed in supply side economics and refusing to look at why it has failed in many cases.You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.
He claims to understand Keynesian economic theory yet wants to raise taxes in an economic downturn and lower them in an economic upturn which is the exact opposite of what Keynes proposed to minimize wild swings in the economy.
You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do. But do not believe in in many cases. Keynsian economics ran into issues that it did not work well with. Stagflation, for example. And the resultant modifications to Keynsian economics, like New Keynsian Economics, Neo Keynsian Economics, Post Keynsian Economics. Fact is, anyone who clings to an economic theory in all cases over the years and with new evidence, is a fool. Or is simply following a policy that helps some group that he believes in helping. As you would be, oldstyle, if you believed in supply side economics and refusing to look at why it has failed in many cases.You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.
He claims to understand Keynesian economic theory yet wants to raise taxes in an economic downturn and lower them in an economic upturn which is the exact opposite of what Keynes proposed to minimize wild swings in the economy.
Bush 2's tax plan does not need me criticizing it. The outcome of the Bush plan was bad enough to not need my criticism. But, I believe you would have to admit that the economy had reached a bad point, unemployment had crept up. The tax decrease did not help. But probably did not hurt much either. That economy had other causes to create the problem that we ran into in 1997 - 98.You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.
Sloppy thinking is believing that "it" has the power to be obvious or not. "It" doesn't; numbers don't work that way. If we want to stay in the real world then all we can talk about is say, whether or not there's a strong correlation between tax hikes and employment growth. That's why I took issue with--...It's obvious from the very charts which you've provided that tax higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring activity during an expansion...
...If our goal is understanding current economic activity so we can feed our families, then we have to be very careful that what we're seeing is actually there.
--because the record was what it was, and employment did in fact grow faster before fy94 than after.... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...
