History repeats itself

[Lucky... 0]

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg

I pasted this graph on photobucket from the Wikipedia site. It describes top margian tax brkts - historcal. Anyway, I lined the begining and end of Harding Coolidge and Reagan to show the repetition of history and subsequent disasters. The disasters were different and how we dealt with disasters such as this have changed too, but I think we can see the brilliant economy in-between these 2 runs in spite of WWII, Korea and VN. Amazing how peacetime is economically worse than wartime, the difference are the tax cuts, which have yet to show beneficial.

[Lucky... 0]

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence is deafening.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence laughter is deafening.

Fixed that for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence laughter is deafening.

Fixed that for you.

There's Mike, to add his usual absolutley nothing. Hey Mike, if you feel like it, show us how in history tax cuts have been good for us and I'm not saying in an anarchist way.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence laughter is deafening.

Fixed that for you.

There's Mike, to add his usual absolutley nothing.

In response to your usual blather, I'm still ahead.

Quote

Hey Mike, if you feel like it, show us how in history tax cuts have been good for us and I'm not saying in an anarchist way.

Asked and answered - I'm uninterested in continuing to play your game.

So, in converse...

Link

Quote

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Link

Quote

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence is deafening.

You have a major flaw in your reasoning. You think that because no one has replied to you then you must be right. When a more likely reason is that no one is responding to you because you have brought up this topic a thousand times, flawed as it is, and you think that the outcome of your rants will be different.

I think most people are just ignoring you, like I usually do and should have done this time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It describes top margian tax brkts - historcal. Anyway, I lined the begining and end of Harding Coolidge and Reagan to show the repetition of history and subsequent disasters.

Have you ever looked at the location of the top tax brackets and its significance? It's not enough to say the top bracket is 90% or 70% of 28%, without any consideration of the income thresholds.

The AMT tax when passed targeted 155 individuals with extensive tax shelters. Now it applies to nearly 30 million. It was 10% in 1969. Now it's 28%. Substantial increase but missed over in your simple "analysis."

[kallend 2,150]

I see you STILL have trouble understanding that Reagan's 8 year presidency ran from 1981 to 1989.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It describes top margian tax brkts - historcal. Anyway, I lined the begining and end of Harding Coolidge and Reagan to show the repetition of history and subsequent disasters.

Quote

Have you ever looked at the location of the top tax brackets and its significance? It's not enough to say the top bracket is 90% or 70% of 28%, without any consideration of the income thresholds.

Certainly, but when being general, it's a great standard. Also, since the rich pay most of taxes, it's a great reference by which to measure what they pay. Some of the sites I posted listed the thresholds. The top Marginal Brkt is a good reference for discussing general tax trends and their results.

Quote

The AMT tax when passed targeted 155 individuals with extensive tax shelters. Now it applies to nearly 30 million. It was 10% in 1969. Now it's 28%. Substantial increase but missed over in your simple "analysis."

OK, so make an argument discussing how tax cuts, the Alt Min Tax are good for the economy, or whatever your argument is.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, so make an argument discussing how tax cuts, the Alt Min Tax are good for the economy, or whatever your argument is.

I'm encouraging you to present a less simplistic argument every 3 days here.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, so make an argument discussing how tax cuts, the Alt Min Tax are good for the economy, or whatever your argument is.

I'm encouraging you to present a less simplistic argument every 3 days here.

Right, so when I make a viable general argumant all the righties can do is to ask for a 100-page argument dissertation or, in Mike's case, avoid the data and drop a few names. I can come back with other names as I provided a few days ago with a more impressive resume, but then we aren't talking the issues but talking people.

I say we talk general trends and look for a major federal tax cut that has helped the general economy. I see there isn't one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where are all the Reagan neo-cons here to defend tax cuts. my friemds? Hmmm, the acquiescence laughter is deafening.

Fixed that for you.

There's Mike, to add his usual absolutley nothing.

Quote

In response to your usual blather, I'm still ahead.

And still dropping names and avoiding the data or skewing it.

Quote

Hey Mike, if you feel like it, show us how in history tax cuts have been good for us and I'm not saying in an anarchist way.

Quote

Asked and answered - I'm uninterested in continuing to play your game.

Never have. You tried the microcosm of saying how the cap gains cut from 20% to 28% embodied the Clinton success when cap gains is a minor part of receipts vs income tax, not to mention the deficit fell every year of Clinton's presidency and that took place in 1997, > 4 years after he took office. Also, there was a slight dip in receipts as that cut took place.

I'm talking major cuts and major effect, not tiny adjustments made as a compromise.

Quote

So, in converse...

Link
***Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Yea, well conceived tax cuts worked so well and those who suffer and whine and just whiners as per McCain's advisors, right Mikeepoo? Yea, those stimulus plans just suck. It's amazing to watch the Republitards advise us about depsression/recession recovery WHEN THE FUCKING LOSERS HAVE NEVER RECOVERED FROM ONE, but they are real good at getting us into them, in fact, aren't they responsibel for all major depressions/recessions in teh 20th-21st century?

Isn't that like the R's teaching us compassion for poor people?

Quote

Link
***Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Even if the data is true, people tend to move out of the city esp when tehy have made money. The Green Acres compex is nothing new. You would have to establish that these people left due to tax avoidance rather than other reasons. As a poor people I have no desire to move to a big city, lived around LA for a while, but big cities are no fun in many ways.

But corporations have moved out of LA, esp aircraft corps like Douglas/Boeing. Long Beach has lost many big corps moved to Mesa, Nazizona, as our tax and labor laws are generally for corps. So yea, people with money look for venues with advantageous laws; big news Mike, thx for clearing that up - we would be lost w/o you.

Now, we've already covered red states generally having much lower wages and much higher workplace mortalities, so where greedy rich people / corps move from and to is irrelevant ither than discussing paths of leats resistance. So if these states would just allow fucking their employees more then they would stay; what a wonderful world it would be under Mikeism.

Quote

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance?

Make sure and define this as corporate prosperity, you havn't established personal prosperity for teh little guy, but I know you don't give a shit about that.

Quote

Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair?

Yes, providing svs rather than pandering to corporations is more expensive. Shall we post data on social svs by state or is that not of interest to you?

Quote

No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Right and states that allow businesses to exploit workers do better, whereas the individual peopel do worse; real good work there, Mike, glad you dug this out, it's a real good find.

Quote

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

Employers must hire enough skilled labor to get the job done or go out of business. On a federal level low taxes have ALWAYS led to a mess; you cannot prove otherwise.

Quote

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

OK, so an unfounded opinion and once again, A STATE REFERENCE WHEN I ILLUSTRATED A FEDERAL TAXATION HISTORY. I can drop as many names and opposing opinions too, Mike, can you show me unbastardized data or just a list of people you agree with?

Quote

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

So what? You're talking sttae tax, I'm talking federal. I'LL TAKE THIS AN AN AGREEMENT THAT LOW TAXES FUCK EVERYTHING UP AS YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING ABOUT FEDERAL TAXES IN THIS LONG CUT-N-PASTE.

Quote

This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars.

Yes, federal taxes were higher, you say the rich were jumping around looking for low income tax states, completely irrelevant to this discussion. So you agree the market soared under higher taxes? Hmm, high taxes demand reinvestment; good point.

Quote

Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.

So what, I was making a federal argument; maybe you can't understand the difference.

I will concede the argument that rich people look for low income tax states. However, Oregon has no sales tax but massive property tax, so it's made up somewhere.


Again, Mike, you look foolish driving this, "states with high taxes loe millionaires" argument when I was asking for major fed tax trends and I posted data for such."

Hell, the new BK laws in 2005 included provisions for people who move to Florida to or other more advantageous states for filers that they must live there for 2 years before filing or be subject to teh laws of teh state from which they just moved. Millionaires like Burt Reynolds had been going to Florida for decades, roll everything into their houses and then file BK to shield their money. I bet OJ moved there for that reason. OK, so rich peopel move to states that allow them shelters, so what, not out subject in this debate.

We get it, you agree.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Even if the data is true, people tend to move out of the city esp when tehy have made money. The Green Acres compex is nothing new.

Of course, the article doesn't state that, but as usual, you'll treat your supposition as if it's scientific fact.

Quote

You would have to establish that these people left due to tax avoidance rather than other reasons.

Article: "relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas"

Quote

As a poor people I have no desire to move to a big city, lived around LA for a while, but big cities are no fun in many ways.

Article: "states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio "

Quote

But corporations have moved out of LA, esp aircraft corps like Douglas/Boeing. Long Beach has lost many big corps moved to Mesa, Nazizona, as our tax and labor laws are generally for corps. So yea, people with money look for venues with advantageous laws; big news Mike, thx for clearing that up - we would be lost w/o you.

Evidently so, it's only taken you two years to finally grasp the point.

Quote

Quote

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance?

Make sure and define this as corporate prosperity, you havn't established personal prosperity for teh little guy, but I know you don't give a shit about that.

Did that in 08, when I showed how the tax cuts shift the tax burden to the higher brackets and actually REMOVE people from the tax rolls on the bottom end.

Quote

Quote

No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Right and states that allow businesses to exploit workers do better, whereas the individual peopel do worse; real good work there, Mike, glad you dug this out, it's a real good find.

Yeah, Lucky, you're right - better to be on unemployment than working. Guess that's why Texas *added* jobs through 08.

Quote

Employers must hire enough skilled labor to get the job done or go out of business. On a federal level low taxes have ALWAYS led to a mess; you cannot prove otherwise.

Yeah, those 20 year expansions in the economy really suck.

Quote

So what? You're talking sttae tax, I'm talking federal.

Yes, because federal taxes are ENTIRELY different than state taxes in regards to the effect they have on business.

Not.

Quote

I'LL TAKE THIS AN AN AGREEMENT THAT LOW TAXES FUCK EVERYTHING UP AS YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING ABOUT FEDERAL TAXES IN THIS LONG CUT-N-PASTE.

You assume an awful lot of agreement with your points, don't you?

As usual, you're incorrect - I *don't* agree with your statement.

Quote

So what, I was making a federal argument; maybe you can't understand the difference.

Well by all mean, master economist Lucky - show us how the state taxes have a different effect than federal taxes.

We'll wait.

Quote

Again, Mike, you look foolish driving this, "states with high taxes loe millionaires" argument when I was asking for major fed tax trends and I posted data for such."

You look even MORE foolish when you agree that the rich move away from high state taxes, but think that high federal taxes are going to have a different effect, or that the rich won't bail if the federal tax rate goes up just like they did when the state tax rates went up.

Quote

OK, so rich peopel move to states that allow them shelters

Rich people move to countries that offer them shelters, too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Mike, I will respnd to your post tomorrow, but can you stay on topic and tell me, show me where major federal tax cuts leads to overal eco0nomic prosperity? I see your state tax argument and I agree that the rich move away to states that benefit them, but that doesn't matter as individually/collectively their federal tax contribution doesn't change.

Again, make a federal argument as I proposed; I don't care about shifts within the country, it just doesn't affect the federal model.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike, I will respnd to your post tomorrow, but can you stay on topic and tell me, show me where major federal tax cuts leads to overal eco0nomic prosperity?

No, I wont - I've shown you more than once how tax cuts have benefitted the economy and you move the goalposts by saying "it doesn't help so-n-so".

So, no, I'm not playing that game anymore. (and NO, it's *NOT* 'agreement' with your argument, either)

Quote

I see your state tax argument and I agree that the rich move away to states that benefit them,

Finally, he sees the light!

Quote

but that doesn't matter as individually/collectively their federal tax contribution doesn't change.

Ok, maybe not.

Seriously, why do you think that they WON'T take the same actions when federal taxes are too high? I can't see how you can logically support that people will take action to avoid high state taxes but won't take action to avoid high federal taxes.

Quote

Again, make a federal argument as I proposed; I don't care about shifts within the country, it just doesn't affect the federal model.

It absolutely does - see above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence from sources that I accept that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence from sources that I accept that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then?

Do you think the economy was worse in 1999-2000 when the rich paid higher taxes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

It was in 2001, before the lower tax rates came into effect.

It just might be unrelated, or at least far more complicated than Lucky's failed theory of < 40% = BAD.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence from sources that I accept that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then?

Asked and answered, previously - note the red text.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence from sources that I accept that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then?

Dodged and ran, previously - note the red text.

Fixed it. How is it when Republigarbage politicians get in, cut taxes (Harding / Collidge, Reagan, GWB), hammer the dig piss out of the economy, you claim they didn't fuck it up? Citing partisan idiots who don't provide data and are talking state issue opinions ISN'T the same as arguing federal tax issues. NEWSFLASH: No matter which state they live in, they have to pay federal tax, so your point is so ridiculously off teh mark that even your cronies can't dig you out. Well, maybe math genius Timmyfitz can come argue that state tax and federal tax are the same.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It was in 2001, before the lower tax rates came into effect.

It just might be unrelated, or at least far more complicated than Lucky's failed theory of < 40% = BAD.

Or your practice of 39.6% doesn't = 40%. Rounding is common and typical. Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Look at my chart, taxes, since WWI minus Harding/Coolidge/Hoover have been 70% minimum and we still ran a deficit. So 40% or 39.6% or even 48% is a recipe for disaster. We need them back to the 50's at a minimum.

But continue picking apart 39.6 vs 40 and enjoy / entertain yourself.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then?

Dodged and ran Put Lucky's idiotic argument in the dirt several times, previously.

Fixed it.

I just made it even more correct.

Quote

How is it when Republigarbage politicians get in, cut taxes (Harding / Collidge, Reagan, GWB), hammer the dig piss out of the economy, you claim they didn't fuck it up?

Like the 20 year expansion after the Reagan tax cuts, Lucky?

Oh, wait, that's right - the Kennedy and Reagan cuts were too long ago, and the Clinton cuts don't count because they "didn't do enough for the little people" (in your opinion, of course).

How about being honest for once and admitting that your only goal is to compare Clinton and GW to try and prove your assumption about taxes?

Quote

Citing partisan idiots who don't provide data and are talking state issue opinions ISN'T the same as arguing federal tax issues.

Except, of course, when the partisan idiots or state issues agree with YOU - then you're crowing it from the rooftops.

Quote

NEWSFLASH: No matter which state they live in, they have to pay federal tax, so your point is so ridiculously off teh mark that even your cronies can't dig you out.

Yes, of course - because people that move to reduce a state tax are going to happily turn over even more of their money just because it's federal instead of state.

No, really.

They will.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[champu 1]

Quote

Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop.

Wait, are you suggesting that taxes be set to optimize receipts based on how the economy is performing to finance government expenditures?

I thought you were arguing taxes should be used as an underhanded manipulation and that historically top marginal rate increases, in and of themselves, were directly responsible for the state of the economy.

If you've changed your mind then... well... I guess we're done here.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have not been able to find any statistically valid evidence from sources that I accept that tax cuts improve the economy. In fact, if they did, we should be doing far better now that we were in 1999 - 2000.

Even David Stockman, architect of Reagan's tax policies, is now saying the GOP has it wrong on tax cuts.

Fixed that for you.

Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then?

Asked and answered, previously - note the red text.

Your NON answer only shows that you have NONE.

(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.