The fastest way to shut down an economy is to raise taxes. there are no exceptions to this law of economics.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:16 AM, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > now you really are proving your own ignorance. hoover 1932 followed > by what? the DEPRESSION. roosevelt 1935 and 1940 and what was still > going on? the DEPRESSION. yeah those tax hikes really helped the > economy didn't they. what a putz. > > On Nov 18, 7:02 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Reality laughs at the Laffer curve, calls Ronald Reagan wrong and > > says > > George W. Bush is a loon. > > > > High marginal tax rates correlate with economic growth. > > > > Examples include World War II and the Truman-Eisenhower years, when > > it > > was around 90 percent, and the Clinton years, when it was high > > relative to the preceding and following administrations. > > > > Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth. > > > > Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush the > > Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993. > > > > On Nov 18, 6:58 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > first of all murky, your "article" is nothing more than an opinion > > > piece written as left wing propaganda. when your boy carter was > > > president, he raised taxes, and look what happened. it took the great > > > ronald reagan to cut taxes and boost the economy, which it did. what > > > a numbnuts you are murky. > > > > > On Nov 18, 6:42 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > which in conservative speak means you can not dispute the article > > > > because it is true so you spew some more mindless drivel . > > > > > > On Nov 18, 6:28 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > this is just another lie being spread by the dems in a lame attempt > to > > > > > justify their huge tax increases again I say, what a load of crap. > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 5:28 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 3:27 am, "mike [move on] 532" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > you keep saying that but refuse to put up any proof of your > claims . > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 6:12 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > murky has no clue. neither do the dems when it come to > economics. > > > > > > > > clueless does not describe their ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 4:02 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond a certain point, however, when taxes begin being > used as > > > > > > > > > transfer payments, incentives to work, save and invest are > reduced, > > > > > > > > > which affects the nation's economic progress. High marginal > tax rates > > > > > > > > > cause people to work fewer hours, take longer vacations, > and shelter > > > > > > > > > their income to evade tax collection. High taxes encourage > individuals > > > > > > > > > to divert resources from their most productive uses to > those uses > > > > > > > > > which will lower their tax burden. > > > > > > > > > > > In any economy, there is an optimal tax rate (the > percentage of GDP > > > > > > > > > that comes from taxes) which will ensure maximum economic > growth; if > > > > > > > > > the tax burden exceeds that level, economic growth will > slow. > > > > > > > > > > > A study that examined data from 1950 to 1995 found that:1 > > > > > > > > > > > -The estimated growth-maximizing tax rate for the U.S. > during that > > > > > > > > > time period was 21 percent of GDP. > > > > > > > > > -The corresponding rate of economic growth would be 4.6 > percent. > > > > > > > > > -In reality, taxes were 24.2 percent of GDP in 1950 and > rose > > > > > > > > > thereafter; the actual economic growth rate during that > period was 3.4 > > > > > > > > > percent. > > > > > > > > > -Actual GDP in 1995 (measured in 1992 dollars) was $6.67 > trillion, but > > > > > > > > > if the optimal tax rate had been effect, GDP would have > been $13.48 > > > > > > > > > billion. > > > > > > > > > -Under the optimal tax rate, workers would have been > producing > > > > > > > > > $107,900 in per capita output in 1995, much more than the > actual > > > > > > > > > figure of $54,100. > > > > > > > > > > > Historic Tax Cuts: JFK and Reagan > > > > > > > > > The 1960s and 1980s were periods of record sustained high > growth, > > > > > > > > > mainly due to the tax cuts and reforms enacted at the > beginning of > > > > > > > > > each decade by Kennedy and Reagan, respectively. > > > > > > > > > > > The JFK administration, against the advice of many economic > advisers, > > > > > > > > > began cutting taxes in 1962, starting with businesses. An > investment > > > > > > > > > tax credit encouraged investment and changes in > depreciation costs > > > > > > > > > lowered the cost of capital for businesses. The top > corporate rate > > > > > > > > > fell from 52 to 48 percent, and the top individual marginal > tax rate > > > > > > > > > fell from 90 to 70 percent. The empirical evidence shows > that these > > > > > > > > > tax cuts stimulated growth:2 > > > > > > > > > > > Between 1962 and 1969, investment grew at an annual rate of > 6.1 > > > > > > > > > percent, far higher than the 3 percent annual rate for > 1959-1962 and > > > > > > > > > the 2.3 percent rate for 1969-1972, after the JFK tax > reforms had been > > > > > > > > > repealed. > > > > > > > > > Real GNP grew 4.5 percent during the 1960s, higher than the > 2.4 > > > > > > > > > percent growth rate seen from 1952-1960. > > > > > > > > > The JFK tax cuts also provided proof of a counter-intuitive > idea, that > > > > > > > > > cutting taxes will not raise deficits:3 > > > > > > > > > > > From 1962-1969, government revenue increased 6.4 percent a > year, > > > > > > > > > compared with 1.2 percent a year between 1952-1959. > > > > > > > > > Indeed, after the '62 and '64 tax cuts, the deficit > actually fell from > > > > > > > > > $7.1 billion to $1.4 billion. > > > > > > > > > The 1980s was another decade marked by sustained economic > growth, > > > > > > > > > which was especially remarkable given the stagflation that > was > > > > > > > > > strangling the economy by the end of President Carter's > term. From the > > > > > > > > > trough of the recession in 1982 to the peak in 1990, it was > the > > > > > > > > > longest peacetime expansion in history. > > > > > > > > > > > Reagan's tax cuts spurred an investment boom, just like in > the 1960s > > > > > > > > > after the JFK tax cuts. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of > 1981 featured > > > > > > > > > a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut. The tax reforms > increased > > > > > > > > > incentives to save, work and invest, which increased the > productive > > > > > > > > > output of the economy to match the increase in demand:4 > > > > > > > > > > > Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan > years, > > > > > > > > > compared with 2.8 percent during the Fort-Carter years and > 2.1 percent > > > > > > > > > during the Bush-Clinton years. > > > > > > > > > Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan > period > > > > > > > > > after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it > experienced a > > > > > > > > > loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. > > > > > > > > > The amount of time the median worker stayed unemployed fell > > > > > > > > > drastically. > > > > > > > > > The first law of government policy should be "first do no > harm." The > > > > > > > > > government should encourage long-term economic growth > through low > > > > > > > > > taxes, stable currency, and enforcing contracts. High taxes > drain > > > > > > > > > resources that would be most productive in the private > sector. The > > > > > > > > > experiences of the JFK and Reagan tax cuts show that a > hands-off > > > > > > > > > fiscal policy works best to stimulate economic growth. > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 3:17 am, "mike [move on] 532" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why the Economy Grows Like Crazy Amid High Taxeshttp:// > www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/ > > > > > > > > > > The raw truth is that the economy has grown faster when > taxes were > > > > > > > > > > higher, but how can we explain that phenomenon? > The real- > > > > > > > > > > world effects of tax policy are counterintuitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > They run exactly opposite the conventional wisdom. They > defy what the > > > > > > > > > > Heritage Foundation calls common sense and what the > American > > > > > > > > > > Enterprise Institute calls logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality laughs at the Laffer curve, calls Ronald Reagan > wrong and > > > > > > > > > > says > > > > > > > > > > George W. Bush is a loon. > > > > > > > > > > > > High marginal tax rates correlate with economic growth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Examples include World War II and the Truman-Eisenhower > years, when > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > was around 90 percent, and the Clinton years, when it was > high > > > > > > > > > > relative to the preceding and following administrations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and > 1940, Bush the > > > > > > > > > > Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993. > > > > > > > > > > > > Moderate tax cuts are followed by a flat economy. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a generalization from one example: Johnson in > 1964. > > > > > > > > > > > > Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a > crash. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > These are covered in more detail in the first part of the > article > > > > > > > > > > "Tax > > > > > > > > > > Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts." > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do high taxes create a stronger economy? > > > > > > > > > > > > I used to run a small business -- a commercial film > production > > > > > > > > > > company. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time we took a dollar out as personal income, it > instantly > > > > > > > > > > turned into 50 cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we didn't really need the money, that was an incentive > to keep it > > > > > > > > > > in the company and to find ways to spend it that took it > out of the > > > > > > > > > > taxable profit column but increased the value of the > company. > > > > > > > > > > > > High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into > long-term > > > > > > > > > > growth. > > > > > > > > > > > > With high taxes, the only way to retain the bulk of the > wealth > > > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > by a business is by reinvesting it in the business -- in > plants, > > > > > > > > > > equipment, staff, research and development, new products > and all the > > > > > > > > > > rest. > > > > > > > > > > > > The higher taxes are (and from 1940 to > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
