Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

Well then, maybe you are finally learning something. Now all you have to do is recognize that the definitions I submitted to you with links, proves that reducing corporate tax rates and top brackets more than lower brackets is a supply side tax cut, JUST LIKE THE TAX CUT OF 1964 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY JFK WAS A SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUT.

I grow tired of trying to educate you because you are simply can not be educated, you are as dumb as a post about economics. That is what listening to left wing extremist propaganda will do to you.

Ignorant tool. NOPE

it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

It is quite irrelevant what Okun said. Any fool with even a modicum of brain power knows that cutting top marginal brackets more than the lower brackets while cutting corporate taxes are TYPICAL SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS. It takes an abject idiot to believe they are demand side cuts. Demand side cuts are typically putting money into the hands of the least wealthy with the opinion that because they are poor they will spend it all.

Someone brought up Eisenhower yesterday. In spite of his being GOP, he helped create a great economy BECAUSE HE SET OUT TO BUILD A SUPER INFRASTRUCTURE. Not that stimulated the economy. JFK did positive things to the economy because he understood that by using supply side tax cuts he stimulated CORPORATE AMERICA AND GAVE A 21% TAX CUT TO THE RICH SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVEST, HIRE WORKERS, AND IMPROVE THE ECONOMY. What he called it was irrelevant; it was supply side. Do you need some more definitions of what Supply Side and Demand Side really are?

Got it, you'll hang onto right wing garbage, though they didn't cut it 21%, they cut it AND got rid of loopholes that ONLY the rich used, thus going to the amazingly low 70% top rate *shaking head*

The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;


Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic


And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage




03.13.oleary

 

[Dad2three]

What rate?

Why would that make things better?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates


Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

Lowering the Corp tax rate (to 28%) and getting rid of loopholes, and using the extra revenues as Obama proposed, would fund infrastructure projects

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates

$16 billion a year will fix things? LOL!

Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

The government spent $3454 billion last year. Will $116 billion more land us in utopia? Why?

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

Lowering the deficit? I thought Obama was going to spend the extra revenue?
Creating jobs? Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost?

Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;

And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage


Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits.

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

I guess you could compare Reagan's deficit spending and the number of jobs added to Obama's deficit spending and the number of jobs added, but that would further highlight Obama's poor performance.

 

[dnsmith35]

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;

And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage


Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits.

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

Raygun did triple the debt. But he still only increased the debt by an amount less than the Obama single year deficits. I have to chuckle at the ignorance when someone makes that claim. 100% of nothing is still nothing. 3 times nothing is still nothing.

Here are some numbers, (which if you are not a total imbecile can be easily checked) that tell the Obama deficit story.

Obama's deficits $2.695 Trillion in 1.92 years for average deficits of $1.403 trillion per year. I got the numbers from the US Treasury site if you want to verify them. Reagan did not have that much deficit his entire 8 years in office. In fact his inflation adjusted deficits for his total 8 year term was $2.4 trillion. (The nominal figure was actually $1.4 trillion)

Do you see how embarrassed you are making yourself by parroting left wing extremist propaganda? THEY LIE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates


Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

Lowering the Corp tax rate (to 28%) and getting rid of loopholes, and using the extra revenues as Obama proposed, would fund infrastructure projects

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates

$16 billion a year will fix things? LOL!

Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

The government spent $3454 billion last year. Will $116 billion more land us in utopia? Why?

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

Lowering the deficit? I thought Obama was going to spend the extra revenue?
Creating jobs? Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost?

Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

 

[Dad2three]

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

I guess you could compare Reagan's deficit spending and the number of jobs added to Obama's deficit spending and the number of jobs added, but that would further highlight Obama's poor performance.

You mean Dubya/GOP put US in a deeper hole for Obama to work out of and the TPGOP refuses to get out and help push? YES

 

[Dad2three]

First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates

$16 billion a year will fix things? LOL!

Going to 45% top rate for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

The government spent $3454 billion last year. Will $116 billion more land us in utopia? Why?

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?

Lowering the deficit? I thought Obama was going to spend the extra revenue?
Creating jobs? Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost?

Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

I guess you could compare Reagan's deficit spending and the number of jobs added to Obama's deficit spending and the number of jobs added, but that would further highlight Obama's poor performance.

You mean Dubya/GOP put US in a deeper hole for Obama to work out of and the TPGOP refuses to get out and help push? YES

I mean Obama spent a lot more, with incredibly low interest rates, and he still can't fix things. LOL!

the TPGOP refuses to get out and help

Obama To GOP: "I Won"

 

[Dad2three]

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!

Raygun did triple the debt. But he still only increased the debt by an amount less than the Obama single year deficits. I have to chuckle at the ignorance when someone makes that claim. 100% of nothing is still nothing. 3 times nothing is still nothing.

Here are some numbers, (which if you are not a total imbecile can be easily checked) that tell the Obama deficit story.

Obama's deficits $2.695 Trillion in 1.92 years for average deficits of $1.403 trillion per year. I got the numbers from the US Treasury site if you want to verify them. Reagan did not have that much deficit his entire 8 years in office. In fact his inflation adjusted deficits for his total 8 year term was $2.4 trillion. (The nominal figure was actually $1.4 trillion)

Do you see how embarrassed you are making yourself by parroting left wing extremist propaganda? THEY LIE.

STOP LYING AND EMBARRASSING YOURSELF BUBBA

Economists go by percentage of GDP


Obama first F/Y budget begins


National Debt Oct 1, 2009 $11,920,519,164,319.42

 

[dblack]

Did no one read the thread topic?

 

[Dad2three]

I guess you could compare Reagan's deficit spending and the number of jobs added to Obama's deficit spending and the number of jobs added, but that would further highlight Obama's poor performance.

You mean Dubya/GOP put US in a deeper hole for Obama to work out of and the TPGOP refuses to get out and help push? YES

I mean Obama spent a lot more, with incredibly low interest rates, and he still can't fix things. LOL!

the TPGOP refuses to get out and help

Obama To GOP: "I Won"

Yes, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom in March 2010 while Dubya's 'job creators' policies lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs mean Obama's policies 'failed' *shaking head*


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh?

Less than 4% of last years spending helps what?

The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?

Raising taxes will create jobs? How?

 

[Dad2three]

Did no one read the thread topic?

So you CAN'T and will not address your bullshit premise that CRA, Carter and Clinton, and the GSE's caused Dubya's subprime bubble and bust huh? lol

OR that private markets had NOTHING to do with it? lol

 

[Dad2three]

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh?

Less than 4% of last years spending helps what?

The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?

Raising taxes will create jobs? How?

Cuts the deficit by 25%

Gov't gets to fix infrastructure, perhaps stronger safety nets. Now run along bozo. You are boring me

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean Dubya/GOP put US in a deeper hole for Obama to work out of and the TPGOP refuses to get out and help push? YES

I mean Obama spent a lot more, with incredibly low interest rates, and he still can't fix things. LOL!

the TPGOP refuses to get out and help

Obama To GOP: "I Won"

Yes, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom in March 2010 while Dubya's 'job creators' policies lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs mean Obama's policies 'failed' *shaking head*


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs

Awesome! So can we cut welfare and food stamps back to Bush levels now? Since Obama's policies "succeeded".

Can we cut government spending back to Bush levels now? Since Obama's policies "succeeded".

 

[dblack]

Did no one read the thread topic?

So you CAN'T and will not address your bullshit premise that CRA, Carter and Clinton, and the GSE's caused Dubya's subprime bubble and bust huh? lol

OR that private markets had NOTHING to do with it? lol

It's not my premise, I don't care, and it's off-topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh?

Less than 4% of last years spending helps what?

The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?

Raising taxes will create jobs? How?

Cuts the deficit by 25%

Gov't gets to fix infrastructure, perhaps stronger safety nets. Now run along bozo. You are boring me

Why are you double counting?

Is it for the same reason you confuse income and wealth?

 

[dnsmith35]

Economics 1

Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)

Definition of Demand Side fiscal policy:

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Supply side and demand side economics are philosophies designed to stimulate the economy by using divergent theories. In theory, supply side economics will cause an influx of investments by the wealthy, prompting new growth. Demand side economics, on the other hand, focuses on stimulating the average consumer to spend more money.

Read more : Supply Side Vs. Demand Side Economics | eHow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

 

[dnsmith35]

Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth." Do you believe that?