I'm confused - not sure where you got your numbers, but as for interpretation - who were the Presidents between Eisenhower and Kennedy who cut spending from 18.62 to 17.62 (your numbers) and between Carter and Reagan who raised spending from 21.12 to 22.29 (again, your numbers). Surely the baseline from where a President cuts depends on where his predecessor ends, does it not?
You can attribute debt to government spending. The more you want to spend the more you will need and the more is taken out of the dynamic economy.
Sure Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing By David Cay Johnston The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses. George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property." The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort." Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it." Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben Franklin
Non sequitur. Logical fallacy. You're assuming that one or the other must be true. The OP simply stated that tax cuts do not produce faster growth.
Wrong, you can attribute debt to GOP policy the past 30+ years. Remember Greenspan going to the GOP Congress in 2001 warning about sticking with Clinton's policies would pay off the debt to quickly??? lol
How are those two statement inconsistent? - - - Updated - - - Deficits are when your tax receipts are lower than your spending. Cut tax receipts and your deficit increases even if your spending doesn't change. Economics 101.
There are trillions sitting in offshore bank accounts and in the portfolios that are doing little for the economy. We do no have a shortage of capital. We have a shortage of demand.
Family median income 2012 dollars http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls Year - income 2012 62,241 1979 57,734 1953 31,929 In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%. In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%. http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4% In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9% http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls The trillions of growth in income and wealth over the past 35 years have not been shared with the middle classes since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. It has virtually all gone to the richer, mostly to the richest. I can see why there would be a little anger there.
I agree completely. To remedy this the tax code does need to be made more progressive than it is today, but not so progressive as it was in the 70's.
Why not so progressive as in the 1970's? Did the US struggle having rich people then??? You think people gaming the system making tens of millions or hundreds of millions shouldn't pay 70%+ of their "income" in taxes??? An example of gaming means laying off employees to push up stock prices to get short term returns!
100% political diatribe! Not a single thing in your ramblings which prevent any American from achieving their potential...in other words...a pity party...
Who cares about the wealthy? I could care less how much taxes Bill Gates pays! Bill Gates, and his income and his wealth and the taxes he pays has absolutely nothing to do with me. If you believe otherwise Cordelier, then please give me some examples of how Bill Gates is effecting your ability to achieve your potential? BTW: I know tons of them, and I've never known a wealthy person who does not spend their money! If you win a $200 million lottery tomorrow are you going to tell me that you won't spend the money? Even the money you don't spend is creating jobs, etc. Here's the bottom line which EVERYONE refuses to grasp; Whatever it is I desire, it is 100% my job to acquire it up to my potential. Not a single wealthy person on Earth will effect my actions to acquire whatever it is I desire. No tax rates on corporations or wealthy people will prevent me from taking actions to acquire more.
I'm working on the data for a new thread to address this point, but basically it's my argument that in the period between the Revenue Act of 1964 and the Kemp-Roth Tax cut in 1981, the tax code was too progressive - on the high end it took too much income from the wealthy that otherwise would have been capital investment and on the low-to-medium ends it excessively stimulated consumption. Lower supply and higher demand led to inflation of the 1970's.
Everything in bold above IMO is 100% meaningless in regards to any individual who wants to realize their potential. Of course I can 'guess' that someone in a wealthy family will get better education but so what...how does this impact me? Kids from wealth and poverty succeed and fail all the time so obviously the poor can succeed and the wealthy can fail. There can be no such thing as equal opportunity unless you wish to precisely define the desired goal. You seem to desire that all kids attend Harvard University and this is impossible. You seem to believe success is about wealth and if you measure life this way you will always be disappointed because no matter how much wealth an individual has someone else will have more...100 times more. Regarding education between private and public schools, you can find good and bad education in private schools and good and bad education in public schools. Can you graph which ones will earn $72K a year instead of $69K a year...sure but again so what...how can you ever place the efforts of an individual in this data? I know today a kid can attend public school, avoid gangs and crime and drugs, study to achieve good grades, have access to scholarships for college studies, move into the work world, and with good individual work performance grow with the company...including starting a business. There is zero doubt in my mind that this is achievable. So, no matter the wealthy, class mobility, and all the other pity party issues today, doesn't one's success or failure boil down to the individual's efforts and decisions? If you can accept this, then the question to ask is why do so many kids and Americans fail in a system which actually does provide some great opportunities? Why do kids choose gangs, crime, drugs, etc. over achieving an education? We live in a world today which places emphasis on music icons, wealthy people, bling, fancy cars, exotic trips, stupidity TV shows, and almost nothing on education and personal actions...
Well, more power to you, OldMan... but if you're paying high taxes on the income you do make, it's going to be harder and it's going to take longer to accumulate your wealth, isn't it? And the less wealth you have, the less you have to invest. Surely you can agree with me on that point.
I don't care what taxes I pay...this is what is required to live in the USA...accept this and get over it! No single American earning $52K or less is paying much in taxation as compared to the government which they are demanding! Who cares how long it takes to accumulate wealth...it cannot all be achieved in the same time frame because we all earn different amounts, spend different amounts and have different investment strategies. As long as people compare themselves to others...it is guaranteed that they will always be disappointed. Please explain to me why every single American earning $52K or less per year is not saving 1/2% of their net incomes? When you can honestly answer this one question you will have the answer to why people fail to acquire more... - - - Updated - - - BTW; the statement I made is about every single person...not just me. It is your job to acquire whatever it is you desire no matter what the other 315 million Americans are doing...
This will be a good thread. First, which is actually impossible, we need to know how much the US government should actually be spending. This is impossible because Americans cannot find consensus on how to spend tax dollars. Second, Americans should be 100% funding the government which they demand and not accruing more debt every year as SOP. Third, today I'll guess the cost of the US government is about $12,500 for every man, woman and child per year. For a household of four this is about $50K per year! I'll guess out of 165 million taxpayers that at least 125 million of them are not paying this amount. IMO there is something severely wrong with a tax system in which 2/3rds of it's taxpayers can't pay their fair share. We pay sales taxes in all sorts of areas and these taxes are identical no matter if it's the wealthy or the poor doing the spending...they are needed to pay for government. Why don't we pay federal income taxes the same way? Bottom line; We have millions of Americans today who refuse to pay their fair share, yet they are demanding larger and larger governments at all levels, governments costing more and more, and this simply cannot work!
Well you'll have to explain A LOT to the economists who say it was oil, "full employment", and bad policy from the central bank Note the EFFECTIVE tax rate by the top 1/100th of 15 and top 1/10th of 1% in the graph? Even the 1% HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT AWAY??? PRETTY STEADY (WITHIN 5 POINTS AT THE TOP) FROM 1960-1980
"Full Employment" was the bad policy from the central bank - until the 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act, it was the prime policy guideline for the Fed to pursue and fighting inflation was a secondary objective. But even if the Fed had been hawkish against inflation, it still would have been fighting a Tax Code that was firmly set to stimulate consumption and inhibit investment, even as inflation was spiraling upwards.
True - but we can debate the merits of different levels on different functions. That's another thread I'm working on, once I crunch all the historical data. Overall, I tend to agree with you... but I think the Government should have the flexibility to run deficits in lean years and surpluses in boom years. Personally, I'd put a 4% GDP growth rate as the target - any year growth is forecast to be below that, you run a deficit and any year it is above it, run a surplus. The problem I have with that is that the poorer you are, the more of your income you typically have to spend just to get by. Should the tax base be broadened? Probably... but I think it's more important that it be made more progressive, especially for the middle class.
AS the top tax rates basically were stable in that period? lol Effective rates WERE within 5% the entire period from 1960-1980.
