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.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
NO, lower tax rates at the top of the income scale ENCOURAGE rent seeking. Every economist knows this.
the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low. In this scenario, cuts in top tax rates can still increase top income shares, but the increases in top 1% incomes now come at the expense of the remaining 99%. In other words, top rate cuts stimulate rent-seeking at the top but not overall economic growth
Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty
the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low.
I strongly disagree.
My incentive for lobbying the government for favors is much stronger when I'm only keeping
30% of my earnings than when I'm keeping 79%.
So, you are more likely to "invest" in rent-seeking activities when you are taxed more. Well then, I think you just proved my point.
However, the opposite is true. You are more likely to invest in rent-seeking activities, when the tax rate is low. Rent seeking is attempting to get more of the pie that is already there. You attempt to get TAKE more pie when you get to KEEP more of what you TAKE. But when you do not get to keep much of the pie you take you choose to MAKE MORE PIE. Ta Dah, you make a capital investment.
So, you are more likely to "invest" in rent-seeking activities when you are taxed more.
Yes, when the government takes 70% of my earnings, I'm more likely to lobby to drop their take to 20% than I am when they're only taking 21%.
I'm more likely to spend money lobbying for a tax holiday in Massachusetts, where the corporate tax rate is 8% than in North Carolina, where it is 3%.
Well then, I think you just proved my point.
Really?
Rent seeking is attempting to get more of the pie that is already there.
If I have $20 million in corporate earnings am I more likely to invest $1 million in lobbyists to cut my rate in half if my tax rate is 70% or if my tax rate is 21%?
But when you do not get to keep much of the pie you take you choose to MAKE MORE PIE.
I'm going to try to liquidate my holdings, not invest more, if you raise my rate from 21% to 70%.
I'm certainly not going to bring in fresh money, to start a new business, at that confiscatory rate.
Lobbying the government to lower your corporate tax rate IS rent seeking, but it is not the only means of attaining "rents". And evidently our current low tax rates are not discouraging even that type of rent seeking.
One of the problems with your analysis is the stark difference between 21% and 70%. I will agree, 70% is on the right hand side of the Laffer curve but 21% is most certainly on the left hand side. Worse, 35% was as well.
Tax rates on the extreme right hand side of the Laffer curve discourage risk taking. But taxes on the extreme left hand side do as well. It has to do with opportunity costs. And I believe the Trump tax cuts, when they settle in, will only further discourage risk taking. Those corporate stock buybacks you love so much, that is money that could be used by the company to invest were they willing to take that risk. Like Sears, six billion dollars spent buying back it's stock when it could have been putting that money into the infrastructure of it's now outdated stores, hiring additional employees instead of the barebones staffing they utilize today, and better positioning itself in the online retail environment. Toys R Us made the same mistake, two billion dollars in stock buybacks as the shares started tanking.
Hell, I think if one simply shorted a company's stock immediately after the completion of a buyback arrangement they could make out like a bandit. It is not that the companies do not have any capital investments to make, it is that they refuse to make those capital investments. Not exactly the behavior of a company positioning itself for growth. And behavior that is directly linked to low tax rates.
Lobbying the government to lower your corporate tax rate IS rent seeking,
And much less likely, at current rates than when rates were highest in the 1st world.
but it is not the only means of attaining "rents". And evidently our current low tax rates are not discouraging even that type of rent seeking.
Post some other rent seeking examples.
Tax rates on the extreme right hand side of the Laffer curve discourage risk taking. But taxes on the extreme left hand side do as well.
Still looking for the cash flow diagram, so we can test your claim?
Those corporate stock buybacks you love so much, that is money that could be used by the company to invest were they willing to take that risk.
Recipients of those corporate dollars never invest any of it, eh?
Like Sears, six billion dollars spent buying back it's stock when it could have been putting that money into the infrastructure of it's now outdated stores, hiring additional employees instead of the barebones staffing they utilize today
You're right, Sears could have wasted another six billion dollars on their dying stores.....I think the shareholders who got that six billion will put it to better use.
Hell, I think if one simply shorted a company's stock immediately after the completion of a buyback arrangement they could make out like a bandit.
Hell, you should post your trades, perhaps in real time?
Consider your own income level.
No, nobody is trying (yet) to subject you to having only 30% of what you earned.
Now, imagine that Demo-lunacy runs rampant and you do see 70% of all you worked for snatched out of your hands. Would you show up for work the next day?
Or would you pretend to be an illegal alien and just live off government "free stuff"?
At what point does "Atlas Shrugged" become something other than fiction?
Hiring illegal aliens because you do not want to pay the going rate for labor is rent-seeking.the incentives for such "rent-seeking" are much stronger when top tax rates are low.
I strongly disagree.
My incentive for lobbying the government for favors is much stronger when I'm only keeping
30% of my earnings than when I'm keeping 79%.
So, you are more likely to "invest" in rent-seeking activities when you are taxed more. Well then, I think you just proved my point.
However, the opposite is true. You are more likely to invest in rent-seeking activities, when the tax rate is low. Rent seeking is attempting to get more of the pie that is already there. You attempt to get TAKE more pie when you get to KEEP more of what you TAKE. But when you do not get to keep much of the pie you take you choose to MAKE MORE PIE. Ta Dah, you make a capital investment.
So, you are more likely to "invest" in rent-seeking activities when you are taxed more.
Yes, when the government takes 70% of my earnings, I'm more likely to lobby to drop their take to 20% than I am when they're only taking 21%.
I'm more likely to spend money lobbying for a tax holiday in Massachusetts, where the corporate tax rate is 8% than in North Carolina, where it is 3%.
Well then, I think you just proved my point.
Really?
Rent seeking is attempting to get more of the pie that is already there.
If I have $20 million in corporate earnings am I more likely to invest $1 million in lobbyists to cut my rate in half if my tax rate is 70% or if my tax rate is 21%?
But when you do not get to keep much of the pie you take you choose to MAKE MORE PIE.
I'm going to try to liquidate my holdings, not invest more, if you raise my rate from 21% to 70%.
I'm certainly not going to bring in fresh money, to start a new business, at that confiscatory rate.
Lobbying the government to lower your corporate tax rate IS rent seeking, but it is not the only means of attaining "rents". And evidently our current low tax rates are not discouraging even that type of rent seeking.
One of the problems with your analysis is the stark difference between 21% and 70%. I will agree, 70% is on the right hand side of the Laffer curve but 21% is most certainly on the left hand side. Worse, 35% was as well.
Tax rates on the extreme right hand side of the Laffer curve discourage risk taking. But taxes on the extreme left hand side do as well. It has to do with opportunity costs. And I believe the Trump tax cuts, when they settle in, will only further discourage risk taking. Those corporate stock buybacks you love so much, that is money that could be used by the company to invest were they willing to take that risk. Like Sears, six billion dollars spent buying back it's stock when it could have been putting that money into the infrastructure of it's now outdated stores, hiring additional employees instead of the barebones staffing they utilize today, and better positioning itself in the online retail environment. Toys R Us made the same mistake, two billion dollars in stock buybacks as the shares started tanking.
Hell, I think if one simply shorted a company's stock immediately after the completion of a buyback arrangement they could make out like a bandit. It is not that the companies do not have any capital investments to make, it is that they refuse to make those capital investments. Not exactly the behavior of a company positioning itself for growth. And behavior that is directly linked to low tax rates.
Lobbying the government to lower your corporate tax rate IS rent seeking,
And much less likely, at current rates than when rates were highest in the 1st world.
but it is not the only means of attaining "rents". And evidently our current low tax rates are not discouraging even that type of rent seeking.
Post some other rent seeking examples.
Tax rates on the extreme right hand side of the Laffer curve discourage risk taking. But taxes on the extreme left hand side do as well.
Still looking for the cash flow diagram, so we can test your claim?
Those corporate stock buybacks you love so much, that is money that could be used by the company to invest were they willing to take that risk.
Recipients of those corporate dollars never invest any of it, eh?
Like Sears, six billion dollars spent buying back it's stock when it could have been putting that money into the infrastructure of it's now outdated stores, hiring additional employees instead of the barebones staffing they utilize today
You're right, Sears could have wasted another six billion dollars on their dying stores.....I think the shareholders who got that six billion will put it to better use.
Hell, I think if one simply shorted a company's stock immediately after the completion of a buyback arrangement they could make out like a bandit.
Hell, you should post your trades, perhaps in real time?
Hiring illegal aliens because you do not want to pay the going rate for labor is rent-seeking. Corporations building barriers to entry for competitors is rent-seeking. Price cutting to take temporary loses in order to stifle competition is rent-seeking. Initiating a corporate stock buyback to inflate the stock price simply to increase executive compensation through stock options is rent-seeking. Collusion with competitors instead of competing with them to keep prices high is rent-seeking. Lobbying government to ease environmental regulations enabling the company to externalize costs is rent-seeking.
Weighted average cost of capital inversely related to marginal tax rate.
Now, concerning the revenues from stock buybacks. Yes, some people may invest that money. But a portion, probably a significant portion is saved. And no, buying stock is not "investing", it is saving based on the value of the stock. Investing entails production, making more pie. Owning a stock does not MAKE more pie. Same thing with taxcuts verses government spending. The government spends ALL the money. The beneficiaries of tax cuts often save some money. And too much savings is a bad thing for an economy. It is called the Paradox of Thrift.
And the downfall of Sears was not a foregone conclusion prior to those stock buybacks. Proper management and adequate investment and Sears could still be dominating the market and handing Amazon their hat.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
NY Times: Trump Got $413M from His Dad, Much of It from Tax Dodges
It's common knowledge that Trump got hundreds of millions - through various means - plus his father's name (which counted) from his Daddy.
You want to deny that is common knowledge - go ahead.
Good day.
Consider your own income level.
No, nobody is trying (yet) to subject you to having only 30% of what you earned.
Now, imagine that Demo-lunacy runs rampant and you do see 70% of all you worked for snatched out of your hands. Would you show up for work the next day?
Or would you pretend to be an illegal alien and just live off government "free stuff"?
At what point does "Atlas Shrugged" become something other than fiction?
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Consider your own income level.
No, nobody is trying (yet) to subject you to having only 30% of what you earned.
Now, imagine that Demo-lunacy runs rampant and you do see 70% of all you worked for snatched out of your hands. Would you show up for work the next day?
Or would you pretend to be an illegal alien and just live off government "free stuff"?
At what point does "Atlas Shrugged" become something other than fiction?
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
What are you talking about?
Where did I say anything about a 70% capital gains tax?
I am against the 70% tax...STRONGLY.
To be clear, I am talking about 0% tax up to the poverty line and a 20-30% tax on everyone else (including capital gains). With only two deductions - capital losses and charitable contributions.
That makes taxation 100% fair and makes doing one's taxes a 5 minute task.
And I am 100% against corporate taxation. All corporate taxes are passed on through either higher prices, lower wages/benefits and/or lower dividends to shareholders. The corporate tax rate should be 0%.
Corporations do not 'eat' corporate taxes.
And will the above reduce government income?
God...I hope so.
Government is far, FAR too big as it is - both in the military and social spending.
Some of both is necessary.
But the levels both are at are absolutely ridiculous.
Well the title of the thread is 70% taxation, that's why I brought it up.
Your suggestion is that we continue to have everybody else support those with lower income or no income at all. Why not everybody pay? I suggest a consumption tax. We have it here in my county. It's 8 cents on every dollar spent on anything outside of food.
The next question is how as a landlord am I supposed to continue renting my apartments if I'm not allowed any deductions? The only way to keep that business would be to double everybody's rent. Could you afford to pay twice as much for rent? Neither can my tenants.
After all, I deduct what I pay for utilities for those apartments, what I pay for insurance, what I pay for property taxes, what I pay for all the repairs or improvements, mortgage interest rates. By the time taxes are due, I have over a hundred deductions not including medical. Over 200 including medical.
Then after that, you want me to pay 20 to 30% on anything over $12,140 which is the poverty line for a single person.
I couldn't afford to keep the business, and I plan on using it to supplement my Social Security when I retire.
80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending. So you definitely don't want a tax on consumption because that would directly hurt economic growth.
You want to protect and increase the lower and middle classes spending in the economy. That's why you keep their federal taxes low or non-existent depending on their income level.
The rich have most of the money and their consumer spending is not tied closely to their tax rate, high or low. There for you want the maximize tax rate on the rich right up to the point BEFORE it starts to be a drag on the economy.
A tax rate like this for the lower, middle and upper class maximizes economic growth and revenue collection for the government. Its the best tax policy to help achieve the highest standard of living for the country as a whole.
So you are one of those people that believe if you steal money from the wealthy, they just pull their pockets open with their thumbs and allow you to help yourself?
It’s we little people that ultimately pay. If you take 70% of a wealthy persons money away, do you think they will give their employees a raise, not lay some off, keep the price of their products or services the same, continue to donate to charities?
Wealthy people are consumers just like blue collar workers. In fact per capital, they consume much more because they have the resources to do so.
As for hurting the economy, many things do that. Look at how much more your grocery bill is today before we started to burn up our food supply for ethanol. As a truck driver, I can testify to how much more we are paying for products because of expensive environmental mandates we have to pass on to our customers who produce the products we buy in the store. So I don’t believe that a consumption tax being only a few cents on a dollar is going to ruin or slow down our economy.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. The Rich do their share, but its not impacted by tax increases or decreases on them typically. That's why you can raise the top federal rate on the rich, because it does not cause them to cut back on their consumer spending at the higher rates suggested.
The best macroeconomic policy when it comes to taxes is to maximize tax revenue coming into the treasury with the highest top federal tax rate possible without hurting the economy. Many Economist believe that rate is 70% for the top federal rate. Some think it may be 80%.
Tax rates in most other countries are higher than the United States. The United States ranks only 134th in the world in terms of taxes collected as a percentage of annual GDP.
This shows that the top federal tax rate can and should be raised on the rich. Doing so will help balance the budget, pay for a stronger defense, without damaging economic growth!
Its not about the individual or your definition of stealing etc. Its about what is best for the United States and the United States market. Its about what is best for the United States Standard of living and United States Security. I'll pick the United States every time over some rich individual who will still be absurdly rich and far better off than 99% of Americans when paying a 70% tax rate.
The Rich benefit to from a 70% tax rate, because their nations military will be better funded, the government will be better able to balance the budget and pay down debt, there will be more money for investments in technology, plus the poverty rate will be reduced, which in turn will reduce the crime rate.
Let's discuss this in more of reality here.
You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?
I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.
If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?
Working parents of dependent children living at the poverty level face a seventy percent marginal tax, or higher, every single freakin day.
Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates
The two pieces of evidence were
1. A. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1945 to 1980 - between 70% and 92% each year
B. Top Federal tax rates in the years 1981 to 2019 - between 28% and 50% each year
2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980
A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:
01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%
Group A has the higher top federal tax rates but superior GDP growth on average. Group B has the lower top federal tax rates but much weaker GDP growth on average.
Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high. For a highly developed economy, 5.31% GDP growth is fantastic. The 70%+ tax rate did not prevent that rate of growth from happening while Kennedy was President.
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth. Its what Bush did in 2001. He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years. Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate did not increase average GDP growth above Clinton's 3.62% as YOU CLAIM it should have. In fact, it did not even succeed in maintaining the 3.62% growth rate under Clinton. Instead we see an anemic growth rate of 1.87%. The only thing cutting the top federal tax rate did was allow the rich to line their pockets and make it harder for the federal government to balance the budget. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH'S CUT OF THE TOP FEDERAL TAX RATE HAD ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL!
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high.
You're wrong. You claimed it didn't hurt GDP. How do you know growth wouldn't have been 1% higher if the top rate was 70%? 2% higher if the top rate was 50%?
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth.
You have no proof, again.
He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years.
What was the growth in 2003, after the cut?
Was it higher than Obama's growth after his tax hike?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
People showed up for work all the time from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal tax rate was between 70% and 92% depending on the year.
Well the title of the thread is 70% taxation, that's why I brought it up.
Your suggestion is that we continue to have everybody else support those with lower income or no income at all. Why not everybody pay? I suggest a consumption tax. We have it here in my county. It's 8 cents on every dollar spent on anything outside of food.
The next question is how as a landlord am I supposed to continue renting my apartments if I'm not allowed any deductions? The only way to keep that business would be to double everybody's rent. Could you afford to pay twice as much for rent? Neither can my tenants.
After all, I deduct what I pay for utilities for those apartments, what I pay for insurance, what I pay for property taxes, what I pay for all the repairs or improvements, mortgage interest rates. By the time taxes are due, I have over a hundred deductions not including medical. Over 200 including medical.
Then after that, you want me to pay 20 to 30% on anything over $12,140 which is the poverty line for a single person.
I couldn't afford to keep the business, and I plan on using it to supplement my Social Security when I retire.
80% of economic growth comes from consumer spending. So you definitely don't want a tax on consumption because that would directly hurt economic growth.
You want to protect and increase the lower and middle classes spending in the economy. That's why you keep their federal taxes low or non-existent depending on their income level.
The rich have most of the money and their consumer spending is not tied closely to their tax rate, high or low. There for you want the maximize tax rate on the rich right up to the point BEFORE it starts to be a drag on the economy.
A tax rate like this for the lower, middle and upper class maximizes economic growth and revenue collection for the government. Its the best tax policy to help achieve the highest standard of living for the country as a whole.
So you are one of those people that believe if you steal money from the wealthy, they just pull their pockets open with their thumbs and allow you to help yourself?
It’s we little people that ultimately pay. If you take 70% of a wealthy persons money away, do you think they will give their employees a raise, not lay some off, keep the price of their products or services the same, continue to donate to charities?
Wealthy people are consumers just like blue collar workers. In fact per capital, they consume much more because they have the resources to do so.
As for hurting the economy, many things do that. Look at how much more your grocery bill is today before we started to burn up our food supply for ethanol. As a truck driver, I can testify to how much more we are paying for products because of expensive environmental mandates we have to pass on to our customers who produce the products we buy in the store. So I don’t believe that a consumption tax being only a few cents on a dollar is going to ruin or slow down our economy.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. The Rich do their share, but its not impacted by tax increases or decreases on them typically. That's why you can raise the top federal rate on the rich, because it does not cause them to cut back on their consumer spending at the higher rates suggested.
The best macroeconomic policy when it comes to taxes is to maximize tax revenue coming into the treasury with the highest top federal tax rate possible without hurting the economy. Many Economist believe that rate is 70% for the top federal rate. Some think it may be 80%.
Tax rates in most other countries are higher than the United States. The United States ranks only 134th in the world in terms of taxes collected as a percentage of annual GDP.
This shows that the top federal tax rate can and should be raised on the rich. Doing so will help balance the budget, pay for a stronger defense, without damaging economic growth!
Its not about the individual or your definition of stealing etc. Its about what is best for the United States and the United States market. Its about what is best for the United States Standard of living and United States Security. I'll pick the United States every time over some rich individual who will still be absurdly rich and far better off than 99% of Americans when paying a 70% tax rate.
The Rich benefit to from a 70% tax rate, because their nations military will be better funded, the government will be better able to balance the budget and pay down debt, there will be more money for investments in technology, plus the poverty rate will be reduced, which in turn will reduce the crime rate.
Let's discuss this in more of reality here.
You are a wealthy man. You are now forced to give up almost 3/4 of your income to the federal government. Then you are forced to give up another 5% to your state government. Another 10% to your county and city governments. Can you tell me one reason you would want to create wealth? Because if you still want to create wealth, you are creating it for your governments and not for yourself. And who does that?
I mean....what you are talking about here (with all taxes combined) is giving governments 85% of your money. That means if you make 10 million dollars in a year, you only get to keep $150,000 of that money. In other words, it makes no sense to invest your money, provide jobs, and taxation to various governments. You'd be better off taking a job as a car salesman.
If the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect exactly 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?
No one is suggesting a top federal rate of 100%. The top federal rate should be the rate which maximizes tax revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. The vast majority of economist believe that sweet rate is well above the current 37% top federal rate. Some believe it is as high as 85%. Its a rate where the rich don't flee the country or stop working and maximizes the revenue that goes into the government.
No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Oh there are many CEO's that are not physically able to do many of the jobs that their minimum wage workers do every day. If how HARD you work can be measured by stress level, heart rate, and perspiration, many CEO's would rank near the bottom compared to most of their workers.
Being a CEO, business leader, business manager does not make you brilliant. Being successful in any business is sometimes down to LUCK, being at the right place at the right time, with the right product or service. I'm not saying there is not talent there, but its not this ladder or pyramid structure you might think that it is.
Donald Trump is a perfect example that you don't have to be extremely smart and talented to be successful in business.
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
If you think its just up to the individual, then why are there not any Billionaires in Somalia?
If CEOs only relied on luck for success, we’d have a million CEOs and they would have to work for low six figures. But if you really believe what you say, become a CEO yourself and make the big bucks.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
How many Billionaire CEO's live in Somalia? NONE! Why? The market there is too weak and unstable and there is no government. Is it because there is no one talented enough out of a population of several million people to do that work? Nope.
In order to succeed in becoming a Billionaire CEO, you do have to have some talent, but you also need to be born into the right circumstances, born into the right country, and yes, be lucky with being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
If it was just about hard work, dedication, and some talent, then anyone could be a CEO. Few people when the multi-million dollar lottery's. Same with becoming a Billionaire CEO. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person with relatively average talent, but enormous luck. Born into a rich family, and received a massive inheritance. Trumps biggest talent is not business, but shocking people with his mouth. He is more of an entertainer.
According to Politifact, Trump didn't even get 100 million from his father. He does have several siblings, and his father was no billionaire although he did very well for himself.
Being a successful CEO has nothing to do with family, race or luck. It has to do with hard work going to college, graduating at the top of your class, climbing up the corporate ladder for most of you life. It has to do with experience and proving yourself to be somebody that can make things happen. Very few if anybody becomes a CEO before the age of 40 unless you developed a product like Facebook or Twitter. On a personal note, you have to find a mate that doesn't mind being alone all the time and moving from city to city. While CEO's don't go down to the shop and operate a drill press, it doesn't mean they don't make sacrifices and do little work. That's only in the movies.
Trump didn't even get 100 million from poppy. That really sux even though a hundred million back then is probably close to a half billion today. That's some consolation.
The point being is that Donald was not some Silver Spoon kid that sat back and took the money. After all, even 100 million is still a life of luxury and more than enough to support a lavish lifestyle for the rest of your life.
The other point is that he made that money grow. He didn't tuck it away in bonds or something, he owned or operated over 500 companies in his career. Did you ever try to make any large sum of money grow 10 or 20 times? It's not that easy or we'd all be doing it.
All the evidence shows that he indeed was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Even if his inheritance was less back then, he should be wealthier today than he claims.
What would Donald Trumps life have been like if he had been born in Somalia or Afghanistan?
Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high. For a highly developed economy, 5.31% GDP growth is fantastic. The 70%+ tax rate did not prevent that rate of growth from happening while Kennedy was President.
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth. Its what Bush did in 2001. He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years. Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate did not increase average GDP growth above Clinton's 3.62% as YOU CLAIM it should have. In fact, it did not even succeed in maintaining the 3.62% growth rate under Clinton. Instead we see an anemic growth rate of 1.87%. The only thing cutting the top federal tax rate did was allow the rich to line their pockets and make it harder for the federal government to balance the budget. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH'S CUT OF THE TOP FEDERAL TAX RATE HAD ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL!
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high.
You're wrong. You claimed it didn't hurt GDP. How do you know growth wouldn't have been 1% higher if the top rate was 70%? 2% higher if the top rate was 50%?
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth.
You have no proof, again.
He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years.
What was the growth in 2003, after the cut?
Was it higher than Obama's growth after his tax hike?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980
A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:
01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
Your evidence isn't evidence.
You say a top rate of 92% didn't hurt GDP.
You have no proof.
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high. For a highly developed economy, 5.31% GDP growth is fantastic. The 70%+ tax rate did not prevent that rate of growth from happening while Kennedy was President.
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth. Its what Bush did in 2001. He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years. Bush's cut of the top federal tax rate did not increase average GDP growth above Clinton's 3.62% as YOU CLAIM it should have. In fact, it did not even succeed in maintaining the 3.62% growth rate under Clinton. Instead we see an anemic growth rate of 1.87%. The only thing cutting the top federal tax rate did was allow the rich to line their pockets and make it harder for the federal government to balance the budget. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BUSH'S CUT OF THE TOP FEDERAL TAX RATE HAD ANY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL!
The proof is in whether GDP growth was good during such times when the top federal tax rate was that high.
You're wrong. You claimed it didn't hurt GDP. How do you know growth wouldn't have been 1% higher if the top rate was 70%? 2% higher if the top rate was 50%?
On the other side, reducing the top federal tax rate does not increase economic growth.
You have no proof, again.
He cut the top federal rate from 40% to 35%. The result was economic growth that averaged 1.87% while he was in office for 8 years.
What was the growth in 2003, after the cut?
Was it higher than Obama's growth after his tax hike?
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth, especially the Bush years.
Real GDP growth while Bush was in office averaged 1.87% per quarter. Under Obama it averaged 1.90% per quarter. Bush got worse economic growth rates despite cutting the top federal rate. Obama got slightly better growth, certainly no worse, after he raised the top federal rate.
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth . That's what the GDP stats vs tax rates show. More than enough evidence, but because of ideology or other reasons, you'll continue to blindly deny it.
Plenty of evidence to support my point. There is no evidence in the GDP numbers vs top federal tax rates supporting your point of view.
You'll have to come up with something better than saying my evidence is "not evidence".
Because all the evidence shows that cutting the top federal rate in taxes does not increase GDP growth,
View attachment 241513
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdl
No evidence? The above is the 2 years after Bush's final tax cut.
Below is 2 years after Obama's tax hike.
View attachment 241518
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mKdk
THE LESSON: Cutting the top federal rate does NOT help economic growth and raising the top federal rate does NOT hurt economic growth .
Lesson: Refuted.
Sorry, but the below average real quarterly GDP growth rates for each President are the FACTS:
2. Average quarterly real GDP growth from 1945 to 1980
A. Presidents from 1945 to 1980:
01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
B. Presidents from 1981 to 2019
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
08. Donald Trump: 2.83%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%
Dropping the top federal tax rate from 40% to 35% under Bush saw the economy grow at the slowest rate of the past 70 years. 1.87% is the AVERAGE of all 32 quarters of measured GDP growth while Bush was in office. It is an indisputable FACT! Brief short term decreases and increases don't accurately show the impact of a tax cut or tax hike. I've looked at all the data for Bush. His average GDP growth numbers would be even worse if you just started with 2003!
I can give you the precise number of each quarter of GDP while Bush was in office, all 32 of them.
