it doesn't murky. try using your brain and think for once. I realize it hurts, but the more you use it, the less the pain. the more money you take out of my pocket, the less I have to spend. the less I spend, the less that is bought. the less bought the less business for stores. the less business, the less goods needed, the less manufacturing. the less manufacturing, the less supplies needed. the less supplies needed, the less shipping being done. less need for employees. the less employees needed. higher unemployment. it is cyclical. it is basic economics. it is a simple concept. higher taxes kill the economy.
On Nov 18, 9:08 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > really then why after every tax increase does the economy improve ? > > On Nov 18, 9:04 am, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
