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.
Not even close. When tax cuts first take effect they people and business' have more money than they did before they take effect, over time that additional money gets incorporated into thier normal spending habits and becomes the new norm. after 4 or 5 years the stimulative effect is gone as to stimulate the economy you have to pump something new into it and the same taxes you had last year for 5 years is nothing new. It is a matter of norming, not psychology.notionally yes. Tax cuts only spur growth when they're cuts. When they become the norm they are just "normal" and spur no growth, they just don't impede it. Thats why since Obama signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts the economy has stabalized but not been spurred. Bush's cuts in the 4 years after they were enacted helped in the creation of 8M jobs, how long would you consider a tax cut is a tax cut instead of just being the tax rate? Taxes have been the same for about 9 years now, when your tax rate is the same for nine years in a row keeping them the same is not a cut and will spur no growth.That makes sense. So if we were to get to zero taxes, just for the sake of argument, it would only have an effect for so long then, right?
Sounds as though you're making an argument that it is a psychological effect.
No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.from the time they were enacted to the time the bubble burst in 2007 they produced 8M jobs.Well, we still have the Bush tax cuts in place; wheres the jobs and prosperity?
The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.
Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?
There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.from the time they were enacted to the time the bubble burst in 2007 they produced 8M jobs.
The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.
Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?
No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.
I'm not sure if it is part of the equation above but Wal Mart buys a shitload from American companies. It may not be in the taxable category so it may not be applicable.
Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.The tax cuts produced 8M jobs? Interesting.
Did the tax hike in 1993 create 19M jobs?
So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?
You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.
Another hilarity is that less than a year ago, when he thought it was a Democrat idea,
Cain said that a national sales tax was 'the worst idea proposed'.
In Herman Cains Writings, a Startling Lack of Foresight | Swampland | TIME.com
3rd paragraph.
This guy is big fat clown.
Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.No, the CG tax cut in 95 coupled with spending restraint and Gingrich's foreced fiscal sanity did. Nice try though.
So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?
You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.
Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?
You said this:
We did that. I'm asking you.
Your asking me a clearly partisan question. I gave you a partisan response. Seems fair to me.
Or did you actually expect tax cuts from nearly a decade ago to create jobs today?
Wasn't a partisan question; it was a very fair question and you, as always, took it to an "us against them" place. You went so far to state that the GOP doesn't care if its a good or bad thing for the nation; only that it is a political football. You should expect more from your party.
As for what I expected, gee, if tax cuts were such a silver bullet, how did we end up here? I mean, we had the tax cuts, there should be more money in the economy than ever--in the hands of the rich who supposedly create jobs and expand the economy. What happened? I'm your response will in no way mention funding 2 major wars while cutting taxes; will it?
Dead from the neck up.Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.There was no capital gains tax cut in 1995. Nice try though.
So, the jobs created between 1993 and 1997, what caused them?
You conservatarians sure believe an awful lot in the benevolent power of government.
Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?
How convenient of an explanation! So, why did the economy grow so fast after TEFRA and a near doubling of the SS tax?
Why did it grow so fast when the top marginal rate was 91%. 91!
Dead from the neck up.Yeah, I had to go back, there was however a 91B tax cut in 96, and there were small business and some individual tax cuts in 1994. The CG tax cut was in 97 and spurred growth further.
Further as I have stated in other posts, tax cuts CONTRIBUTE to job creation, by they are not the only thing that does so, it's a package. Tax increases are also a drag on the economy and thats the reason why the GOP won in 1994 to begin with (and why Clinton poassed his "targetted tax cuts" in 1994 in an attempt to own the politics of tax cuts. . Clintons high tax policies were slowing down the recovery which started under GHWB and which he benefitted from greatly. One thing you have to remember also, until Obama took office and the democratics held the budget hostage until Bush was gone every Presidents first year in office is a continuation of his predecessors policies. You do remember that right after the 92 election and before Clinton had even taken office he was already taking credit for the recovery that was already under way don't you?
How convenient of an explanation! So, why did the economy grow so fast after TEFRA and a near doubling of the SS tax?
Why did it grow so fast when the top marginal rate was 91%. 91!
You must be kidding. Ok, instead of me berating you for your utter lack of intelligence,
Go find where the term "marginal tax rate" is defined.
BTW genius, high taxes REMOVE privately owned wealth from the economy.
At the end of the day, only people of the irrational belief that matters of economy are best served in the halls of government. FALSE.
You people want government control because you are incapable of managing your own finances.
you people also believe that compassion begins in the bank accounts of other people and should be managed by bureaucrats.
Clinton was no economic scholar. What he did was listen to much smarter people than he.
Clinton was convinced he needed to increase taxes because as a liberal, that is what they do. What actually happened is Clinton at the advice of his advisors, let the economy run itself.
Your notion that only high taxes can drive an economy is a FAIL.
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged on Sunday his "9-9-9" tax reform plan would raise taxes on some Americans but denied criticism it would help the rich while hurting the poor.
"Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," Cain, a former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza who has never held elected office, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes on some | Reuters
People would still be paying State, County, Property, City etc sales tax ANYHOW.Consumption drives 70% of the American economy.
So the former Federal Reserve guy Cain wants to tax consumption and lower taxes for the rich.
Which puts a burden on the working poor.
Shifting the tax burden from the rich to the working poor.
Republicans....it's what they do.
Here is a webpage I found that pretty much sums up the real world scenario:
Author's Note: If you buy a dollar's worth of a taxable product, you pay $1.08 at this point. Right out of the box.Effective June 1, 2010 the Arizona sales tax rate for retail purchases is 6.6%. Maricopa County adds on .7% sales tax to support roads and jails. That's a total of 7.3%.
It continues on.
Then, each city may add sales tax. If you add the total of the Arizona sales tax and Maricopa County sales tax, 7.3%, to the city sales tax rate, you'll get the total retail sales tax that you'll pay when purchasing merchandise in that city.
City Sales Tax Rates in Maricopa County, Arizona
<snip>
Apparently, 9-9-9 if I understand it correctly will add nine cents to every dollar spent. Making the tax rate in PHX $0.19. If I don't have that right, please tell me what the sales tax rate in Phoenix will be if 9-9-9 were in place.
Thanks.
The left loves being lied to. It's the only way they ever win.Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain acknowledged on Sunday his "9-9-9" tax reform plan would raise taxes on some Americans but denied criticism it would help the rich while hurting the poor.
"Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," Cain, a former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza who has never held elected office, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes on some | Reuters
He unlike most politicians is attempting to be honest on all fronts of the debate. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't mislead the public in an attempt to garner more votes. Is he or his plan perfect? Hell no, but to his credit he isn't hiding the facts.
Any other candidate besides maybe Paul would have dodged that question or changed the subject all together.
