How Quickly will State and Local Income Taxes go up?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not what the government spends that's important.

I disagree.

It's the difference between revenue and spending that we need to be concerned about.

I'd prefer spending of 17% of GDP with revenue of 16% of GDP over spending and revenue
balanced at 24% of GDP.

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell, like the last 35 years. Spending half as much on infrastructure is a bad idea. Cutting federal aid to the states ditto. Raising taxes and fees, and cutting things like federal aid to public universities and high schools ditto. Allowing the minimum wage to fester ditto, Dupe.

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell

Killing inflation, massive GDP growth, won the Cold War....yeah, everything went to hell......DERP!

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively. Those rates remained for 14 years till 1964 For those 14 years the average GDP growth rate average was 4.03%.

The top tax rate dropped to 70% in 1964 and remained till 1981. During those 17 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.54%.

The top tax rate began a gradual fall from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988. During those 8 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.46%.

In this century top tier tax rates have been in 30's for 17 years and the average GDP growth rate was only 1.8%, the lowest for any 17 year period since the great depression.

Republicans make a very good argument that cutting taxes spurs investments and leads to high growth but that theory doesn't match reality. After major drops in top tier tax rates, we have seen GDP average growth rates for the following years drop from 4.03% to 3.5% to 3.46% to 1.8%.

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively.

It's true, world wars that wipe out your competition tend to boost GDP while your competition rebuilds.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964, nor the gdp growth rates after the Reagan tax cuts, and it certainly does not explain our current 18 years of top tax rates in 30's with average GDP growth of only 1.8%.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964,

Larger, more mature economies tend to have lower GDP growth rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell

Killing inflation, massive GDP growth, won the Cold War....yeah, everything went to hell......DERP!

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively. Those rates remained for 14 years till 1964 For those 14 years the average GDP growth rate average was 4.03%.

The top tax rate dropped to 70% in 1964 and remained till 1981. During those 17 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.54%.

The top tax rate began a gradual fall from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988. During those 8 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.46%.

In this century top tier tax rates have been in 30's for 17 years and the average GDP growth rate was only 1.8%, the lowest for any 17 year period since the great depression.

Republicans make a very good argument that cutting taxes spurs investments and leads to high growth but that theory doesn't match reality. After major drops in top tier tax rates, we have seen GDP average growth rates for the following years drop from 4.03% to 3.5% to 3.46% to 1.8%.

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively.

It's true, world wars that wipe out your competition tend to boost GDP while your competition rebuilds.

The war also wiped out overseas 4 our product. The good old days were fueled By higher taxes on the rich, investment in the non-rich and infrastructure, doubling the minimum wage, the GI Bill and so much education. All the things the GOP has blocked the last 35 years.

A couple more decades of this BS and we will be a totally brainwashed banana Republic. Great job GOP and silly dupes.

The war also wiped out overseas 4 our product.

Are you kidding? Everybody was buying our stuff, even if we had to lend them money to do it.

The good old days were fueled By higher taxes on the rich,

Bullshit. If you think any rich people paid anything close to 90%, you're dumber than I first suspected.

investment in the non-rich and infrastructure,

Our massive welfare state isn't "investing in the non-rich"? LOL!

All the things the GOP has blocked the last 35 years.

If they'd have blocked those things, we'd have a lot less than $21 trillion in debt.

A couple more decades of this BS and we will be a totally brainwashed banana Republic.

Based on you, it's too late, you morons already outnumber the rest of us.

The rich paid more I said s*******, investing in the non rich is cheap college and training, like the GI Bill, and our minimum wage should be at least$12. Stupid dupe.

The rich pay a higher chunk with lower rates, bozo.
Minimum wage should be $0.

 

[Flopper]

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell, like the last 35 years. Spending half as much on infrastructure is a bad idea. Cutting federal aid to the states ditto. Raising taxes and fees, and cutting things like federal aid to public universities and high schools ditto. Allowing the minimum wage to fester ditto, Dupe.

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell

Killing inflation, massive GDP growth, won the Cold War....yeah, everything went to hell......DERP!

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively. Those rates remained for 14 years till 1964 For those 14 years the average GDP growth rate average was 4.03%.

The top tax rate dropped to 70% in 1964 and remained till 1981. During those 17 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.54%.

The top tax rate began a gradual fall from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988. During those 8 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.46%.

In this century top tier tax rates have been in 30's for 17 years and the average GDP growth rate was only 1.8%, the lowest for any 17 year period since the great depression.

Republicans make a very good argument that cutting taxes spurs investments and leads to high growth but that theory doesn't match reality. After major drops in top tier tax rates, we have seen GDP average growth rates for the following years drop from 4.03% to 3.5% to 3.46% to 1.8%.

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively.

It's true, world wars that wipe out your competition tend to boost GDP while your competition rebuilds.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964, nor the gdp growth rates after the Reagan tax cuts, and it certainly does not explain our current 18 years of top tax rates in 30's with average GDP growth of only 1.8%.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964,

Larger, more mature economies tend to have lower GDP growth rates.

Yes but not a yearly average drop in gdp growth rate of 15% after the cut in top rates.

You are trying come up with reasons why GDP drops in years following cuts in the top rate. The claim is that drops in the top rate result in increase economic growth. In all 4 periods following cuts in the top rate, the following years show no increase in growth rate. In fact in at 3 out 4, there was decrease.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when the GOP cuts the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 30%, everything goes to hell

Killing inflation, massive GDP growth, won the Cold War....yeah, everything went to hell......DERP!

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively. Those rates remained for 14 years till 1964 For those 14 years the average GDP growth rate average was 4.03%.

The top tax rate dropped to 70% in 1964 and remained till 1981. During those 17 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.54%.

The top tax rate began a gradual fall from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988. During those 8 years the average GDP growth rate was 3.46%.

In this century top tier tax rates have been in 30's for 17 years and the average GDP growth rate was only 1.8%, the lowest for any 17 year period since the great depression.

Republicans make a very good argument that cutting taxes spurs investments and leads to high growth but that theory doesn't match reality. After major drops in top tier tax rates, we have seen GDP average growth rates for the following years drop from 4.03% to 3.5% to 3.46% to 1.8%.

The top tax rate rose in 1950-53 to 92% and GDP was 8.7%, 8.1%, & 4.1% respectively.

It's true, world wars that wipe out your competition tend to boost GDP while your competition rebuilds.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964, nor the gdp growth rates after the Reagan tax cuts, and it certainly does not explain our current 18 years of top tax rates in 30's with average GDP growth of only 1.8%.

That does not explain the fall in GDP grow rates over 17 years following the top tax rate drop from 92% to 70% in 1964,

Larger, more mature economies tend to have lower GDP growth rates.

Yes but not a yearly average drop in gdp growth rate of 15% after the cut in top rates.

You are trying come up with reasons why GDP drops in years following cuts in the top rate. The claim is that drops in the top rate result in increase economic growth. In all 4 periods following cuts in the top rate, the following years show no increase in growth rate. In fact in at 3 out 4, there was decrease.

Yes but not a yearly average drop in gdp growth rate of 15% after the cut in top rates.

Interesting theory. So what is the mechanism that causes a cut in marginal rates to reduce GDP growth?

In all 4 periods following cuts in the top rate, the following years show no increase in growth rate.

Reagan didn't have higher growth than Carter?
LBJ didn't have higher growth than JFK?