Do Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy?

[Harry Dresden]

LOL. Not only wrong, but kind of stupid. Yes, the very wealthy did invest the money that they saved on taxes and created jobs. Jobs in China, jobs in Indonesia, jobs in Mexico. but not jobs here, and here we are, in one hell of a fix, economically. And you and the rest of the cretins are suggesting that we cut taxes on the wealthy even more?

what is your definition of "VERY WEALTHY?".....

 

[manu1959]

i think that everyone that makes more than 250k should fire anyone that works for them that makes less than 250k......

then lets have all those on unemployment start their own company and see how they do.....

I think all of us should just go on strike, and close the country down for a few weeks and see how the wealthy make out.

No, that makes no sense at all, now does it. But it makes just as much sense as the nonsense that you posted.

We had a crisis 68 years ago. We spent to the point where the yearly deficit was more than 100% of GDP. And taxed the wealthy 99% after the first $300,000. And rewarded our service men and women with the GI Bill. A huge social service give-a-way. One that created more college educated people in this nation than any other nation in the world. And we led the world for another 50 years. Just to put things in perspective.

the wealthy will be fine......you all live paycheck to pay check.....go for it...

 

[Meister]

Nope, investing their money doesn't necessarily create jobs anymore than giving $billions to the banks helped people from being foreclosed on. It just makes the rich, richer and that doesn't help anybody but the rich.

Now, if you want to put that money into job creation, do so, CREATE jobs.....don't give tax breaks to the already obscenely wealthy.

If their investing their money...it's helping the economy. Don't agree with me, that's your right...but don't tell me I'm wrong.

LOL. Not only wrong, but kind of stupid. Yes, the very wealthy did invest the money that they saved on taxes and created jobs. Jobs in China, jobs in Indonesia, jobs in Mexico. but not jobs here, and here we are, in one hell of a fix, economically. And you and the rest of the cretins are suggesting that we cut taxes on the wealthy even more?

Rockhead I do see that your rearing that sociialist head of yours once again. I know you have a wealth envy and this is no more than sour grapes to you. I get it rockhead.
You mention jobs in China, Mexico, and Indonesia. But the idiot in you came out and said "not here." OK assbite...show me where you read that they don't invest in America? And you talk about me being stupid. Yes they do invest here assbite, one of the main reasons is that year in year out, decade in decade out, the dollar has been the most stable denomination in the world. You know rockhead, if you looked in the mirror in the morning, you would see in bold letters written across your forehead "I'm Stupid."
I will tell you a little secret, the reason why we are in an economic fix right now isn't because of the wealthy..it's because of the politicians, numnuts. Like I said you have wealth envy, and your stupid...live with it.

 

[manu1959]

LOL. Not only wrong, but kind of stupid. Yes, the very wealthy did invest the money that they saved on taxes and created jobs. Jobs in China, jobs in Indonesia, jobs in Mexico. but not jobs here, and here we are, in one hell of a fix, economically. And you and the rest of the cretins are suggesting that we cut taxes on the wealthy even more?

what is your definition of "VERY WEALTHY?".....

as shaquille oneil once said......rich people sign the backs of checks wealthy people sign the front.....

 

[Meister]

i think that everyone that makes more than 250k should fire anyone that works for them that makes less than 250k......

then lets have all those on unemployment start their own company and see how they do.....

I think all of us should just go on strike, and close the country down for a few weeks and see how the wealthy make out.

No, that makes no sense at all, now does it. But it makes just as much sense as the nonsense that you posted.

We had a crisis 68 years ago. We spent to the point where the yearly deficit was more than 100% of GDP. And taxed the wealthy 99% after the first $300,000. And rewarded our service men and women with the GI Bill. A huge social service give-a-way. One that created more college educated people in this nation than any other nation in the world. And we led the world for another 50 years. Just to put things in perspective.

Just to put things in perspective your a cretin

 

[rayboyusmc]

Ray deny it as you will....just sayin../QUOTE]

And your not denying it either? Get a life and read the whole article.

Revise your statement from when the rich to if the rich invest.

Whenever I get a poster like you attacking my credibility, I always see the same in your posts. Amazing self mirror on these threads.

Read the frigging article and point out where he is wrong or just say you don't need facts.

 

[FactFinder]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

 

[xsited1]

Tax cuts hurt the economy only if, over the long-run, spending is not cut. Otherwise, tax cuts help the economy.

But supply-siders must realize that cutting taxes without cutting spending is merely Keynsianism in reverse.

Not exactly. You only have to cut spending if tax revenues don't equal expenditures. In some cases, reducing taxes can actually increase tax revenues.

In some cases, that is true. But it is not for most cases in the United States, and especially not income taxes at current rates.

You'll have to explain yourself. Are you saying income taxes in the United States are too low???

 

[glockmail]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. ...

Hey "Fact" Finder, get a fucking clue. It was the poor folk who couldn't their fucking house payments who sank this economy. Don't be such a fucking dummy.

 

[Toro]

Not exactly. You only have to cut spending if tax revenues don't equal expenditures. In some cases, reducing taxes can actually increase tax revenues.

In some cases, that is true. But it is not for most cases in the United States, and especially not income taxes at current rates.

You'll have to explain yourself. Are you saying income taxes in the United States are too low???

I am saying that given the current tax structure in the United States, cutting taxes will increase the deficit, which is merely Keynesian economics in drag.

 

[xsited1]

In some cases, that is true. But it is not for most cases in the United States, and especially not income taxes at current rates.

You'll have to explain yourself. Are you saying income taxes in the United States are too low???

I am saying that given the current tax structure in the United States, cutting taxes will increase the deficit, which is merely Keynesian economics in drag.

I have no reason to doubt you, but do you have any data to back that up?

 

[KittenKoder]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

 

[Toro]

You'll have to explain yourself. Are you saying income taxes in the United States are too low???

I am saying that given the current tax structure in the United States, cutting taxes will increase the deficit, which is merely Keynesian economics in drag.

I have no reason to doubt you, but do you have any data to back that up?

Yes, Reagan cut taxes and the deficit rose. Reagan raised taxes and the deficit was narrowed. Bush II cut taxes and the deficit rose. Bush I raised taxes and the deficit narrowed. Clinton raised taxes and the deficit narrowed. Canada raised taxes and the deficit was eliminated. The government of Saskatchewan raised taxes and the deficit was eliminated.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that cutting income taxes that are not excessive increases revenues. There is evidence that when taxes are excessive, such as when the UK eliminated the 98% tax on unearned income, revenues rose. There is also evidence that when royalty taxes on natural resources are cut, revenues can rise. And cutting corporate income taxes can also raise revenues. There is also some evidence in the developing world that cutting income taxes raises revenues when there is an amnesty for tax evasion since tax evasion is widespread. However, there is no evidence that a general cut in broad-based taxes in a Western economy raises revenues. When Arthur Laffer first proposed this idea, he had no empirical evidence to back it up. He proposed it as a theory on an undefined curve. In fact, the empirical data across different budgetary jurisdictions in the Western world overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy
by Russ Beaton

Never have so many been fooled for so long by an idea so totally lacking in economic logic, facts and theory. I am speaking of the religiously held and seldom questioned premise that (are you ready?): TAX CUTS STIMULATE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!

I can hear you thinking (even if your values bias makes you otherwise eager to agree): “Here comes the bleeding heart liberal, anti-trickle down, do something for humanity mantra.” No, indeed. I’m talking data here—numbers and empirical evidence. Check your values at the door and come on in.

Let’s start by examining conventional wisdom. You know the drill—Cut taxes. Leave the money in the hands of the people rather than the depraved clutches of the government. That way the people, being good red-blooded (Visa) card-carrying Americans, will dutifully spend the money. This stimulates economic activity, creates jobs and we’ll all live happily ever after. Why, the activity thus stimulated may be so vigorous that collection of taxes on this newly stimulated activity will soon exceed the amount of the original tax cuts! It’s the economic version of perpetual motion.

The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

yeah I suppose what JFK did hurt the economy, just like what happened when Reagan cut income, and captial tax. I won't mention Bush because you get too agitated about that. Personally, I feel that with tax cuts puts more money in my pocket where I can spend the money on what I need, plus help stimulate the economy by me putting it back in. On the otherside of this coin,the government takes it out of my pocket (which leaves me not spending on what I need) to them spending on earmarks that has no benefit to me, and maay just benefit a small minority...which by the way will not get us out of a recession.
Ray deny it as you will....just sayin...

Yeah, but it is not black and white - the cost of being governed has risen for most Americans pretty steadily for the last century...

I don't think anyone really knows what would happen if taxes were cut because in all practicality our taxes, as a percentage of income, have done nothing but go up in modern times; at least for 95% of us.

I think that if 80% - 95% of us ever have the perception of fair taxes, our economy will be unstoppable.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

yeah I suppose what JFK did hurt the economy, just like what happened when Reagan cut income, and captial tax. I won't mention Bush because you get too agitated about that. Personally, I feel that with tax cuts puts more money in my pocket where I can spend the money on what I need, plus help stimulate the economy by me putting it back in. On the otherside of this coin,the government takes it out of my pocket (which leaves me not spending on what I need) to them spending on earmarks that has no benefit to me, and maay just benefit a small minority...which by the way will not get us out of a recession.
Ray deny it as you will....just sayin...

JFK cut taxes on the middle class, the people who spend the money, that's why his tax cuts worked. Cutting taxes on the wealthy only helps the wealthy get richer, it doesn't help the economy because they don't spend the money, they invest it.

Your going to have to trust me on this Sheila...when the rich invest their money, it does help the economy. It helps create jobs with the businesses they invest in. Job creation is where the employees make their money. If the businesses have 401K's, or IRA's the employee can invest for their retirement, and help build businesses to create more jobs. I know, I know, you didn't look at that angle. But, that's what I'm here for. I'm here to help you see the other side of the coin that the left failed to show you....Your welcome.

I'm going to disagree Mr. Meister.

Money in the hands of the middle class is what creates jobs, because only then will the investor-class citizen have an incentive to create a product or service designed to separate a middle-class citizen from some of that money.

-Joe

 

[Meister]

JFK cut taxes on the middle class, the people who spend the money, that's why his tax cuts worked. Cutting taxes on the wealthy only helps the wealthy get richer, it doesn't help the economy because they don't spend the money, they invest it.

Your going to have to trust me on this Sheila...when the rich invest their money, it does help the economy. It helps create jobs with the businesses they invest in. Job creation is where the employees make their money. If the businesses have 401K's, or IRA's the employee can invest for their retirement, and help build businesses to create more jobs. I know, I know, you didn't look at that angle. But, that's what I'm here for. I'm here to help you see the other side of the coin that the left failed to show you....Your welcome.

I'm going to disagree Mr. Meister.

Money in the hands of the middle class is what creates jobs, because only then will the investor-class citizen have an incentive to create a product or service designed to separate a middle-class citizen from some of that money.

-Joe

Joe, I think what I'm trying to get across is that we don't raise taxes on anyone...rich or middle class. What we have to do is reign in our governments spending, and not let the "wealthy" shoulder the burden. There are not enough wealthy to do so. I really don't think that a family making 250K a year should be considered wealthy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

JFK cut taxes on the middle class, the people who spend the money, that's why his tax cuts worked. Cutting taxes on the wealthy only helps the wealthy get richer, it doesn't help the economy because they don't spend the money, they invest it.

Your going to have to trust me on this Sheila...when the rich invest their money, it does help the economy. It helps create jobs with the businesses they invest in. Job creation is where the employees make their money. If the businesses have 401K's, or IRA's the employee can invest for their retirement, and help build businesses to create more jobs. I know, I know, you didn't look at that angle. But, that's what I'm here for. I'm here to help you see the other side of the coin that the left failed to show you....Your welcome.

Nope, investing their money doesn't necessarily create jobs anymore than giving $billions to the banks helped people from being foreclosed on. It just makes the rich, richer and that doesn't help anybody but the rich.

Now, if you want to put that money into job creation, do so, CREATE jobs.....don't give tax breaks to the already obscenely wealthy.

I'll disagree with you too Sheila. At least on the last line... other than infrastructure construction and maintenance and human resources for the bureaucracy, government has no business 'creating' jobs. It doesn't know what to produce and has little incentive to produce anything efficiently, that is why China is using free enterprise, with direction from 'The People', to create an economy that will dwarf ours if we don't get our shit together.

It is o.k. for The People to give incentives to the auto industry to build electric cars, especially if it is done in concert with incentives to the energy industry to build a correlating distribution system. But, if the government takes it upon itself to build cars, the odds are high that no one will want one, especially after a few years of stagnant production.

Risk of failure is an incredible motivator to see what your prospects need to become customers.

-Joe

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, you are both right (Joe and Meister). The workers do make the money for the upper class, without the workers the upper class wouldn't exist. However, it is because of government regulations that the upper class can often ignore this and forget who earns them the money. Think about it for a moment, by regulating how they do business you are narrowing the competition, thus the workers have fewer choices in jobs, by taxing them too much you do pretty much the same thing. Not taxing them at all would be a mistake for the country, but over regulation is also a huge mistake. We need a middle ground.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Joe, I think what I'm trying to get across is that we don't raise taxes on anyone...rich or middle class. What we have to do is reign in our governments spending, and not let the "wealthy" shoulder the burden. There are not enough wealthy to do so. I really don't think that a family making 250K a year should be considered wealthy.

if this was the 50's yea.....now these guys at that level are just living comfortably.....that number should be much higher,maybe the million + club.....i dont know.....why dont we ask Warren Buffet what he thinks is the WEALTHY cut off line......i bet he knows

 

[editec]

It cracks me up that people think there's a single formula for how to stimulate a macroeconomy.

Tax cuts MAY stimulate the economy or they may not...depending on what the economy needs for stimulation at the time.

duh!

If capital formation lacking, then by all means cut taxes to give the investor class more money to form capital to invest in supply-side production

If consumer spending is down and the economy is tanking because the people have no money to buy with, then by all means find a way to get money into the hands of the consuming class to get the economy rolling again.

Thinking that one can define the ONE TRUE FORMULA for how to get the economy rolling is like thinking one only ever needs to turn one's auto to the RIGHT or to the LEFT in ALL cases to avoid collisions.

How is that any of you fail to see this?

For economies no less than for farming, there is a time and a season for sowing seed and a time and a season for bringing in the crops.

Does anyone here ONLY save, or do you sometimes spend, too?

And when you spend money wisely do you chide yourselves for not having saved every cent that you needed for ESSENTIALS?

An economy has TWO sides, folks...supply AND demand.

For some reason some of you imagine that only the supply side ever needs stimulation.

Why?

I can't imagine why you think that, to be honest.

Surely no economist would argue with me on that point.