What happens when you have a lower corporate tax rate?

[Siete]

Reagan cut taxes and tripled the deficits for years. Bush cut taxes and threw away a surplus.

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

LOL, the Tax cuts brought us out of the recessions, do try and keep up.

It's the spending stupid. (Not you stupid, but Presidents in general).

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

 

[Grizz]

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

LOL, the Tax cuts brought us out of the recessions, do try and keep up.

It's the spending stupid. (Not you stupid, but Presidents in general).

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

 

[Siete]

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

LOL, the Tax cuts brought us out of the recessions, do try and keep up.

It's the spending stupid. (Not you stupid, but Presidents in general).

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan based on normal situations. Clinton had to TAKE it. Revenues go up when thieves take what isn't theirs.

Did revenue go up AND the budget get balanced under Clinton? Yes.

Under Bush or Reagan? No.

It was the dot com era under Clinton, Reagan cleaned up Nixon, Ford and Carter's mess. And paved it in gold for Bush Sr and Clinton..

Bush Jr fucked it up along with Obama..

Can Hillary save us? Maybe

Friend, Hillary is Bush on steroids. She is every bit the Neo-Con.

I know

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL, the Tax cuts brought us out of the recessions, do try and keep up.

It's the spending stupid. (Not you stupid, but Presidents in general).

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

 

[Grizz]

LOL, the Tax cuts brought us out of the recessions, do try and keep up.

It's the spending stupid. (Not you stupid, but Presidents in general).

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

Sorry son, go back to your Union job and bemoan the greedy bidness owners.

 

[Siete]

Wrong. Economies come out of recession tax cuts or not. It's called the business cycle. Look it up.

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

 

[Grizz]

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

"
Conclusion
This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking.

This review of empirical studies also establishes some standards by which a tax system may be judged. If we apply these standards to our national tax system, the U.S. has probably the most inefficient tax mix in the developed world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If it came down 10 points—still higher than most of our trading partners—it would add 1 to 2 points to GDP growth and likely not lose tax revenue, because the tax base would expand from in-flows of foreign capital as well increased domestic investment, hiring, and work effort. The preponderance of evidence is such that virtually everyone agrees that the corporate rate should come down, although many continue to claim, opposite the evidence,[29] that such a move would lose revenue."

What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?

Your charts were all pretty and shit but I can post a source to refute your source every time.
The difference we have here is that the numbers I post are real and verified. As a business owner I can tell you that when people have more money they spend it on my "stuff". The more "stuff' they buy the more "stuff" I need to supply. The more "stuff" I need to supply the more people I need to create it. You see I live in the real world. You don't. you live in a theoretical world that Obama and Hitlery and Warren create for you. Sorry son.

 

[Montrovant]

Reagan cut taxes and tripled the deficits for years. Bush cut taxes and threw away a surplus.

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan based on normal situations. Clinton had to TAKE it. Revenues go up when thieves take what isn't theirs.

Did revenue go up AND the budget get balanced under Clinton? Yes.

Under Bush or Reagan? No.

The first 6 Clinton years were deficit years, the last he was forced to cut back on (here's that word again) SPENDING and he ran surpluses. Bush inherited the Clinton recession (yes Clinton recession) . He cut taxes and revenues went up....and the recession was ending. Then all hell broke loose and he spent us into oblivion. The difference between you and I is that I am not a blind partisan, you are.

The charts I have seen show a surplus during 3 or 4 of the Clinton years.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States
U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress
Which President Rang Up the Highest Deficit?

Not trying to argue, just pointing out a discrepancy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have history backing me up, you? Not so much. I have cited facts and figures, posted all of my sources...and all you've got is "nuh-uh".
You aren't very good at this.

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

Raising the minimum wage don't. Equate economic growth by a long shot..

Trickle up poor

Trickle up misery

 

[Siete]

China has a corporate tax rate of 25% ...if the US lowers its corporate rate equal to, or below China this country wouldnt see an increase in job growth because of LABOR RATES..

duuuuuuuuh

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

"
Conclusion
This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking.

This review of empirical studies also establishes some standards by which a tax system may be judged. If we apply these standards to our national tax system, the U.S. has probably the most inefficient tax mix in the developed world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If it came down 10 points—still higher than most of our trading partners—it would add 1 to 2 points to GDP growth and likely not lose tax revenue, because the tax base would expand from in-flows of foreign capital as well increased domestic investment, hiring, and work effort. The preponderance of evidence is such that virtually everyone agrees that the corporate rate should come down, although many continue to claim, opposite the evidence,[29] that such a move would lose revenue."

What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?

Your charts were all pretty and shit but I can post a source to refute your source every time.
The difference we have here is that the numbers I post are real and verified. As a business owner I can tell you that when people have more money they spend it on my "stuff". The more "stuff' they buy the more "stuff" I need to supply. The more "stuff" I need to supply the more people I need to create it. You see I live in the real world. You don't. you live in a theoretical world that Obama and Hitlery and Warren create for you. Sorry son.

''


refute away !

7 Charts Show What Free Market Economics Have Really Brought on America

 

[Siete]

In 1974, an obscure economist scribbled some thoughts on a napkin that served as the engine for the most influential presidency of the past three and a half decades and the most unequal economy America has experienced since the Great Depression.

The napkin notes, written by Arthur Laffer and later embraced by Ronald Reagan, contained a figure illustrating the logic of "supply-side" economics, which translates to lowering taxes and regulations on corporations and the affluent in order to stimulate growth and have wealth "trickle down" to the rest of society.

That theory, which came to be known as Reaganomics, turned out to be wrong. Despite grand promises of widespread prosperity, only the elite benefited from the tide that has risen since the Reagan era.



Paper Napkin economics ... sounds about right for Republicans.

wipe the drool off your chin boys.

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

"
Conclusion
This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking.

This review of empirical studies also establishes some standards by which a tax system may be judged. If we apply these standards to our national tax system, the U.S. has probably the most inefficient tax mix in the developed world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If it came down 10 points—still higher than most of our trading partners—it would add 1 to 2 points to GDP growth and likely not lose tax revenue, because the tax base would expand from in-flows of foreign capital as well increased domestic investment, hiring, and work effort. The preponderance of evidence is such that virtually everyone agrees that the corporate rate should come down, although many continue to claim, opposite the evidence,[29] that such a move would lose revenue."

What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?

Your charts were all pretty and shit but I can post a source to refute your source every time.
The difference we have here is that the numbers I post are real and verified. As a business owner I can tell you that when people have more money they spend it on my "stuff". The more "stuff' they buy the more "stuff" I need to supply. The more "stuff" I need to supply the more people I need to create it. You see I live in the real world. You don't. you live in a theoretical world that Obama and Hitlery and Warren create for you. Sorry son.

''


refute away !

7 Charts Show What Free Market Economics Have Really Brought on America

Boring we know what happens in the real world.

 

[Grizz]

LOL, child our Labor Rates are stupid at best.
You poor kids......across the board tax cuts would indeed create jobs.
Let everyone keep more of their OWN money and they spend more......they buy more....demand rises.....Businesses must create more to keep up......they hire more so that they can create more.....you lefty's are too stupid to understand business.

wrong ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


trickle down economics has a history of SHORT TERM GAIN ... LONG TERM FAILURE.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong trickle up poor is a disaster in the making if it goes on steroids.


We went to fucking 1 and 3 jobs are part time under Obama..

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.



trickle down fail !

"
Conclusion
This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking.

This review of empirical studies also establishes some standards by which a tax system may be judged. If we apply these standards to our national tax system, the U.S. has probably the most inefficient tax mix in the developed world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If it came down 10 points—still higher than most of our trading partners—it would add 1 to 2 points to GDP growth and likely not lose tax revenue, because the tax base would expand from in-flows of foreign capital as well increased domestic investment, hiring, and work effort. The preponderance of evidence is such that virtually everyone agrees that the corporate rate should come down, although many continue to claim, opposite the evidence,[29] that such a move would lose revenue."

What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?

Your charts were all pretty and shit but I can post a source to refute your source every time.
The difference we have here is that the numbers I post are real and verified. As a business owner I can tell you that when people have more money they spend it on my "stuff". The more "stuff' they buy the more "stuff" I need to supply. The more "stuff" I need to supply the more people I need to create it. You see I live in the real world. You don't. you live in a theoretical world that Obama and Hitlery and Warren create for you. Sorry son.

''


refute away !

7 Charts Show What Free Market Economics Have Really Brought on America

I already have son.
You lose.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In 1974, an obscure economist scribbled some thoughts on a napkin that served as the engine for the most influential presidency of the past three and a half decades and the most unequal economy America has experienced since the Great Depression.

The napkin notes, written by Arthur Laffer and later embraced by Ronald Reagan, contained a figure illustrating the logic of "supply-side" economics, which translates to lowering taxes and regulations on corporations and the affluent in order to stimulate growth and have wealth "trickle down" to the rest of society.

That theory, which came to be known as Reaganomics, turned out to be wrong. Despite grand promises of widespread prosperity, only the elite benefited from the tide that has risen since the Reagan era.



Paper Napkin economics ... sounds about right for Republicans.

wipe the drool off your chin boys.

You fuck head liberals coined the term trickle down economics.

And it has been working for 40 years, Obama still uses it today

 

[Siete]

well, there ya go ... name calling, finger pointing, declaring themselves winners, and nothing else.


RW's are such pathetic little creatures.

 

[Grizz]

well, there ya go ... name calling, finger pointing, declaring themselves winners, and nothing else.


RW's are such pathetic little creatures.

I've called you nothing but wrong son. I've backed up everything I've said and all you have is "nuh-uh".

 

[Dragonlady]

Depends on the type of company. Manufacturing vs financial for instance

production companies wont hire more labor unless theres a significant increase in demand for the product, lower their taxes and they enjoy the profit

And that's bad why?
Are you one of these people that think corporate profits are stuffed in a mattress rather than reinvested in other areas?

Reagan cut taxes and tripled the deficits for years. Bush cut taxes and threw away a surplus.

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

Revenues also went up under Reagan and Bush because THEY SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS.

Reagan launched into a race to spend Russia into the ground on military hardware. It kick started the US economy, and encouraged everyone to get credit cards and spend.

When the government spends, 25% of the money they spend in the private sector with defence contractors comes back to it in the form of corporate income tax and employee withholding. So of course revenues went up. The idiocy was thinking it was the tax cuts that did it

Wasn't it you who said "It's the spending stupid". Obama took Bush's 1.4 trillion deficit and turned it into a 4 billion deficit, while cutting government spending, and lowering unemployment. Reagan couldn't do that. That's borderline miraculous.

Conservatives are so economically challenged, they shouldn't be allowed to run the country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

production companies wont hire more labor unless theres a significant increase in demand for the product, lower their taxes and they enjoy the profit

And that's bad why?
Are you one of these people that think corporate profits are stuffed in a mattress rather than reinvested in other areas?

Reagan cut taxes and tripled the deficits for years. Bush cut taxes and threw away a surplus.

Projected surplus, sorry I know you Clintonista's don't like to use that word.
Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up.
Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.

But here's the rub, it's the spending stupid. No matter WHAT your "revenue" is ( and I hate that word in conjunction with taxes), if you send MORE than you make you have a problem. I don't care if you are Saint Ronnie or the Shrub.

The problem ole Barak has is that his deficits are killing us. You CAN'T keep spending shit loads more than you take in. He could push the top rate to 100% but if he keeps spending like a drunken Sailor it's all for naught.

Economics 101 son.

Revenue went up under Bush and Reagan because we were coming out of recessions, and revenues always go up.

Clinton RAISED taxes and revenues went up.

Revenues also went up under Reagan and Bush because THEY SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS.

Reagan launched into a race to spend Russia into the ground on military hardware. It kick started the US economy, and encouraged everyone to get credit cards and spend.

When the government spends, 25% of the money they spend in the private sector with defence contractors comes back to it in the form of corporate income tax and employee withholding. So of course revenues went up. The idiocy was thinking it was the tax cuts that did it

Wasn't it you who said "It's the spending stupid". Obama took Bush's 1.4 trillion deficit and turned it into a 4 billion deficit, while cutting government spending, and lowering unemployment. Reagan couldn't do that. That's borderline miraculous.

Conservatives are so economically challenged, they shouldn't be allowed to run the country.

One of the first things the Republicans did after GW Bush was elected was to let PAYGO expire. PAYGO was working in the nineties.
Republicans let it expire because they knew their cut taxes, borrow, and spend agenda would never comply with PAYGO rules.

And it didn't.

 

[candycorn]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Or you end up with a situation like you have in Texas where these massive factories are opened up for 10 years before they move somewhere else who under cuts them. For the 10 years, thousands of kids are put into the public school system:

While the factories that were built pay zero taxes. So that is how you end up 38th in spending.

The good news is that traffic is so bad that air quality goes into the shitter also as thousands of cars are stuck on highways. Meanwhile, the factories pay no taxes to build new roads OR clean up the air.