since I asked you to provide your history, and you couldn't I will assume you concede the point. thanks. look up Hoover and his tax increases that started the depression look up roosevelt and how his constant tax increases only worsened the depression look up carter and what his tax increases did to the economy some of the worst economic eras in our history, and all started with tax increases.
On Nov 19, 3:23 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well then post an example of this real history you are talking about ! > > On Nov 18, 5:59 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > and what history are you refering too? the real history that has > > proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that higher taxes kill the economy. > > or the made up history that you fool libs rewrite in order to fit your > > warped and degenerate philosophies. > > > On Nov 18, 3:53 pm, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > [ it is a simple concept. higher taxes kill the economy. ] > > > not according to history which shows clearly the opposite > > > > On Nov 18, 9:29 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > ... > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
