Why do Republicans continue to lie about Trickle Down neo-liberal economics?

[Phantasmal]

Republicans TALK growth but Democrats HAVE growth.

Putting money in the pockets of the rich - the Republican obsession - is not what creates growth. Plutocracy hurts growth. JFK supported a RESPONSIBLE tax cut to a top rate around 72%. It's Reagan that took it much too low.

Yes, but then didn’t he raise it several times?

 

[cawacko]

Well the Great Recession certainly hurt Economic growth during Obama’s years but then again ask yourself why economic growth under Reagan was lower than JFK, LBJ and Clinton?

In fact post WWII Reagan has been the only Republican President to see economic growth above the post WWII average of 2.9% at 3.5%. Why is that?

And there was a huge recession when Vulker beat inflation under Reagan. So you have no answer

 

[Craig234]

Yes, but then didn’t he raise it several times?

No, the history of tax in the country is pretty much that FDR raised them a lot for WWII and the Great Depression, to top nominal rates of 90%; JFK lowered them to about 72%; that was all fine, the economy did fine. Rich people did not starve. We had higher than normal growth and lower inequality.

Then Reagan cut taxes for the rich, and created our first large peacetime deficits, and 90% of Americans had their incomes flatten while the wealthiest had their incomes skyrocket.

Picture tells a thousand words:

http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wealth-inequality.png

Edit: Sorry, I misread your post the first time.

I was talking more about JFK and thought you asked, didn't he raise taxes several times.

As I said in a later post, realizing you meant Reagan, yes, the effects of his huge cuts were so bad he went on to raise taxes 11 times - restoring about half of the taxes and leaving half of the cuts in place.

 

[cawacko]

No, the history of tax in the country is pretty much that FDR raised them a lot for WWII and the Great Depression, to top nominal rates of 90%; JFK lowered them to about 72%; that was all fine, the economy did fine. Rich people did not starve. We had higher than normal growth and lower inequality.

Then Reagan cut taxes for the rich, and created our first large peacetime deficits, and 90% of Americans had their incomes flatten while the wealthiest had their incomes skyrocket.

Picture tells a thousand words:

http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wealth-inequality.png

See Mott, Reagan didn't raise taxes.

 

[Craig234]

And there was a huge recession when Vulker beat inflation under Reagan. So you have no answer

Besides noting that Volcker was a Carter appointee, the answer to your question is complicated. A short part is that Reagan simply borrowed the money for his growth rate, and the situation was different under Obama.

 

[Craig234]

See Mott, Reagan didn't raise taxes.

Reagan cut taxes a lot and irresponsibly. The effects were so bad that he went on to raise them 11 times, leaving about half of the cuts in place. His own economic team has since disavowed the cuts pretty much as bad, e.g, David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett.

 

[cawacko]

Besides noting that Volcker was a Carter appointee, the answer to your question is complicated. A short part is that Reagan simply borrowed the money for his growth rate, and the situation was different under Obama.

Bernanke was a Bush appointee. The situation is different under every President. Reagan got far better results

 

[Craig234]

See Mott, Reagan didn't raise taxes.

Also - I misread his question as being about JFK. Actually as I said in my first reply to you, Reagan did raised taxes 11 times after the initial cut, restoring about half of the taxes, because the effects were so bad.

 

[cawacko]

Also - I misread his question as being about JFK. Actually as I said in my first reply to you, Reagan did raised taxes 11 times after the initial cut, restoring about half of the taxes, because the effects were so bad.

As to your first sentence, fair enough

 

[Craig234]

Bernanke was a Bush appointee. The situation is different under every President. Reagan got far better results

Actually, that's not the case either, that each issue is different under each president - there are some things that can be compared.

It's not a simple topic and because of that it's easy to distort the facts.

But we can draw some broad lessons.

For just one example - the right-wing paradise of the 1920's with low taxes and rising inequality led to the Great Depression. While the right-wing nightmare of MASSIVE government borrowing and spending, taking over a huge part of the economy, including not only the rather socialist idea of the government heavily involved in the production of goods and services but creating goods and services with no economic benefit - bombs and planes and tanks for WWII - led to economic RECOVERY.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And there was a huge recession when Vulker beat inflation under Reagan. So you have no answer

Oh please Wacko the Recession of 78 through 82 was nothing compared to the Great Recession. Apples to oranges. The facts are cutting taxes has never proven to replace lost revenue by growing the economy. Supply Side economics has never worked.

 

[CFM]

Oh please Wacko the Recession of 78 through 82 was nothing compared to the Great Recession. Apples to oranges. The facts are cutting taxes has never proven to replace lost revenue by growing the economy. Supply Side economics has never worked.

Why do you ignore the truth?

How can you lower taxes when half the country doesn't pay the taxes you want to lower? If a family of four making almost $50,000 pays zero income taxes, how can you lower their income tax liability?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

More importantly, why does the Republican base (and yes, even the Democratic base) continue to buy into it? This will be what -- the third time? -- trying massive tax cuts. They don't pay for themselves, and thus balloon the debt. They didn't work under Lord Raygun, they didn't work under Bush, and they're not going to work under Trump. All they do is increase the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor (formerly the middle class).

Any theories on why the people are stupid enough to believe that tax cuts for the super rich will generate wealth for the middle class and below? I laugh at the pittance that the middle class will receive under these tax cuts.

There is a lot of your faulty premise to unpack here

1) There is no such theory as "trickle down economics". There is an economic theory called supply side economics
2) Tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves. You presume that it is the governments money. It is not. It is the peoples money
3) What do you think about the 1990 tax cuts for the rich by Bill Clinton? Did they work?
4) Taxes by themselves do nothing to increase income disparity. That being said, the tax code is supposed to raise money for basic services for the government. It isn't to manage wealth disparities
5) The middle/lower classes pay little to know federal income taxes as it is, so any time federal income taxes are discussed then mathematically they are going to benefit those who pay them. It is a math problem. It is a political problem in that too many politicians (republican and democrat) have removed too many people from the burden of paying federal income taxes

Now I have a question for you

Why should citizens of a particular state get to have a loophole to pass their high tax state off on the federal government? If they want to pay higher taxes they should pay them.

 

[CFM]

There is a lot of your faulty premise to unpack here

1) There is no such theory as "trickle down economics". There is an economic theory called supply side economics
2) Tax cuts don't have to pay for themselves. You presume that it is the governments money. It is not. It is the peoples money
3) What do you think about the 1990 tax cuts for the rich by Bill Clinton? Did they work?
4) Taxes by themselves do nothing to increase income disparity. That being said, the tax code is supposed to raise money for basic services for the government. It isn't to manage wealth disparities
5) The middle/lower classes pay little to know federal income taxes as it is, so any time federal income taxes are discussed then mathematically they are going to benefit those who pay them. It is a math problem. It is a political problem in that too many politicians (republican and democrat) have removed too many people from the burden of paying federal income taxes

Now I have a question for you

Why should citizens of a particular state get to have a loophole to pass their high tax state off on the federal government? If they want to pay higher taxes they should pay them.

Only one of the states with the 10 highest State/local income tax rates went for Trump. Iowa.

1) Notice the same ones calling Supply Side "trickle down" don't refer to what they support as "trickle up"
2) You don't notice those complaining saying anything about cutting spending on things for which the federal government has no authority to spend.
3) They'll find some excuse to justify those
4) $22 trillion spent on social welfare since 1965 in order to eradicate that inequality with no measurable result
5) A family of four pays ZERO income taxes until their gross income is almost $50,000. Throw in another kid or two and it goes even higher. In addition, at least the way my States figures its state income taxes, if they don't pay federal, they also don't pay state income taxes.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why do you ignore the truth?

How can you lower taxes when half the country doesn't pay the taxes you want to lower? If a family of four making almost $50,000 pays zero income taxes, how can you lower their income tax liability?

Why do you ignore the truth. 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.).

You're also ignoring the fact that many people who aren't paying income taxes right now, are likely to have paid those taxes in the past or at some point in the future. You also conveniently ignore the reality of federal excise taxes, state income taxes, and variety of other taxes that are often less avoidable than the federal income tax.

Having said that...who said I was for lowering taxes? Who said I was in favor of raising them for that matter.

There's just simply not enough smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that this tax plan does little to grow the economy (unless you believe in mythological creatures like Santa, The Easter Bunny and Supply Side Economics), does little to help the non-wealthy, while exploding our debt even further. It is simply a give away to the very wealthiest whom need it the least.

 

[Teflon Don]

Why do you ignore the truth. 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.).

You're also ignoring the fact that many people who aren't paying income taxes right now, are likely to have paid those taxes in the past or at some point in the future. You also conveniently ignore the reality of federal excise taxes, state income taxes, and variety of other taxes that are often less avoidable than the federal income tax.

Having said that...who said I was for lowering taxes? Who said I was in favor of raising them for that matter.

There's just simply not enough smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that this tax plan does little to grow the economy (unless you believe in mythological creatures like Santa, The Easter Bunny and Supply Side Economics), does little to help the non-wealthy, while exploding our debt even further. It is simply a give away to the very wealthiest whom need it the least.

Well we aren’t talking about payroll tax reform and those moneys are for defined distributions.

It is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[cawacko]

Oh please Wacko the Recession of 78 through 82 was nothing compared to the Great Recession. Apples to oranges. The facts are cutting taxes has never proven to replace lost revenue by growing the economy. Supply Side economics has never worked.

The '81 recession was deep. How did we have the growth we did in the '80's if you claim supply side didn't work?

 

[Buckly J. Ewer]

 

[CFM]

Why do you ignore the truth. 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.).

You're also ignoring the fact that many people who aren't paying income taxes right now, are likely to have paid those taxes in the past or at some point in the future. You also conveniently ignore the reality of federal excise taxes, state income taxes, and variety of other taxes that are often less avoidable than the federal income tax.

Having said that...who said I was for lowering taxes? Who said I was in favor of raising them for that matter.

There's just simply not enough smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that this tax plan does little to grow the economy (unless you believe in mythological creatures like Santa, The Easter Bunny and Supply Side Economics), does little to help the non-wealthy, while exploding our debt even further. It is simply a give away to the very wealthiest whom need it the least.

You are ignoring that those that pay "income taxes" pay both it AND the payroll tax. The income tax payers aren't exempt from the payroll tax like the payroll only tax payers are exempt from income taxes. That argument is so weak even you should acknowledge it. But you don't. In addition, and it only weakens your argument further, is that those of us paying income taxes aren't exempt from the sales, excise, or variety of other taxes. We pay them, TOO.

Your claim that those not paying income taxes now have likely paid in the past or will at sometime in the future is pure and unsubstantiated speculation. In other words, it's a GUESS and an excuse by you on behalf of those that should be contributing to the society in which they live yet fail to do so and offer nothing but whining about those that pay the taxes they don't aren't paying enough. I don't give a shit if they pay income taxes as long as they don't get things funded by them. That means the food stamp freeloaders, as just one example, can fucking do without and find some other way to feed themselves and their kids.

 

[CFM]

Well we aren’t talking about payroll tax reform and those moneys are for defined distributions.

It is irrelevant to the argument.

Mott's entire argument centers around "they pay other taxes so they're exempt from income taxes". The sad part is he ignores that many pay BOTH income and the other taxes.