See my response to Ricter above. It is putting money at the bottom end that does it. Doesn't matter how. Kennedy did it with tax cuts at the low end (the high was cut too, but that's not where the boost came from). Sanders wants to do it via a bump in the minimum wage up to 15/hr plus what could be substantial medical cost savings -- that we'll believe when we see it. We know the potential for a tremendous economic boost is wrapped up in those medical cost numbers that are about twice what is reasonable. Almost all of that money ends up nearer the top, so it doesn't work nearly as well to boost the economy as does money that ends up nearer the bottom.
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Whatever pie, lol.
This whole thing illustrates a fundamental divide. Pie and his socialist pals think the way to grow the economy is to use taxes to punish successful people and give some of the money to the bottom end. They have various euphemisms for what is essentially theft, eg social justice, fairness, spreading the wealth around.
Conservatives believe the way to grow the economy is not to punish success but to encourage it. They feel it's better to see someone start a business and employ 100 people than have the government try to support most of them. Of course, if you do that, they aren't so dependent on the government and are likely to do crazy stuff like voting for republicans, so it is better to keep them on the reservation if possible. And you can always bring in large numbers of immigrants from countries where class warfare is the norm.
This whole thing illustrates a fundamental divide. Pie and his socialist pals think the way to grow the economy is to use taxes to punish successful people and give some of the money to the bottom end. They have various euphemisms for what is essentially theft, eg social justice, fairness, spreading the wealth around.
Conservatives believe the way to grow the economy is not to punish success but to encourage it. They feel it's better to see someone start a business and employ 100 people than have the government try to support most of them. Of course, if you do that, they aren't so dependent on the government and are likely to do crazy stuff like voting for republicans, so it is better to keep them on the reservation if possible. And you can always bring in large numbers of immigrants from countries where class warfare is the norm.
Whatever lol indeed. How many business startups "that employ 100 people" have owners or managers making more than $10 million a year (where Sanders's highest tax tier would kick in)? Damn few.
reagan cuts did not fail. and far fewer people pay taxes now... so the low end of the income spectrum has not been hurt by what the dems and reagan did in 1986 when they balanced out the income tax code. That balancing was not the reagan tax cuts.
Piezoe you keep misrepresenting history.
plus
1. everything piezoe states about the why the Kennedy tax cuts worked is speculation.
Most leftists economists I read try to argue the cuts were successful because back then the high end was far too high. But whether Piezoe is correct or the leftists economists is impossible to know. The facts are thus...
after the tax cuts, real GDP grew at 5.8% in 1964, 6.5% in 1965, and 6.6% in 1966. The unemployment rate declined from 5.2% in 1964 to 3.8% in 1966, falling all the way to 3.5% in 1969. Although Kennedy did not live to see it, the rest of us did.
And then Reagan modeled his cuts on those... and GDP went up and tax revenues went up.
Then the Bush cuts saw gdp go up and govt tax revenues go up and even the one percent paid more.
Why?
well kennedy predicted it..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-lessons-from-jfk-on-tax-policy-2013-11-22
Kennedy eloquently described the potential effects on economic growth of reducing taxes. When people have more money, they spend it, generating additional tax receipts.
On Sept. 18, 1963, he said, “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
Piezoe you keep misrepresenting history.
plus
1. everything piezoe states about the why the Kennedy tax cuts worked is speculation.
Most leftists economists I read try to argue the cuts were successful because back then the high end was far too high. But whether Piezoe is correct or the leftists economists is impossible to know. The facts are thus...
after the tax cuts, real GDP grew at 5.8% in 1964, 6.5% in 1965, and 6.6% in 1966. The unemployment rate declined from 5.2% in 1964 to 3.8% in 1966, falling all the way to 3.5% in 1969. Although Kennedy did not live to see it, the rest of us did.
And then Reagan modeled his cuts on those... and GDP went up and tax revenues went up.
Then the Bush cuts saw gdp go up and govt tax revenues go up and even the one percent paid more.
Why?
well kennedy predicted it..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-lessons-from-jfk-on-tax-policy-2013-11-22
Kennedy eloquently described the potential effects on economic growth of reducing taxes. When people have more money, they spend it, generating additional tax receipts.
On Sept. 18, 1963, he said, “A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
Meanwhile the IT guy who was given immunity by a grand jury is singing like a canary. It is apparently very damaging stuff and someone is going to jail for sure.
A separate prong of FBI investigation has formed and its looking at the Clinton Foundation. That is a corruption investigation not related to classified material. Federal corruption is, of course, a felony.
Everything this woman has touched has become a huge shitstorm of misjudgement and incompetence. Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi... its just one goat fuck after another.
If you think Hillary Clinton can run the USA without doing irreparable harm just ask yourself what reaction North Korea would have to another Clinton presidency (that last one was a huge windfall for North Korea because Bill Clinton paid them off massively).
If you live in Seattle or San Francisco and you get nuked by North Korea and wake up dead don't come complaining on ET.
A separate prong of FBI investigation has formed and its looking at the Clinton Foundation. That is a corruption investigation not related to classified material. Federal corruption is, of course, a felony.
Everything this woman has touched has become a huge shitstorm of misjudgement and incompetence. Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi... its just one goat fuck after another.
If you think Hillary Clinton can run the USA without doing irreparable harm just ask yourself what reaction North Korea would have to another Clinton presidency (that last one was a huge windfall for North Korea because Bill Clinton paid them off massively).
If you live in Seattle or San Francisco and you get nuked by North Korea and wake up dead don't come complaining on ET.
That's exactly right in my opinion, so frankly no one cares that the top bracket would go from 40 to 54%, except those few individual making more then ten million of course. The trick is to put more money in the pockets of those nearer the bottom, that's exactly what Sanders plan will do in my opinion.
That's right too. You guys are all geniuses! Pat yourselves on the back. You especially Jem , since you figured out, apparently all by yourself, that Reagans supply-side economics eventually impoverished millions, so they don't pay any income tax! What a country! And we named an Airport after him! The beauty of Sanders plan is that many of these poor folks would once again become tax paying citizens!! Congratulations on the good work!
Meanwhile the IT guy who was given immunity by a grand jury is singing like a canary. It is apparently very damaging stuff and someone is going to jail for sure.
A separate prong of FBI investigation has formed and its looking at the Clinton Foundation. That is a corruption investigation not related to classified material. Federal corruption is, of course, a felony.
Everything this woman has touched has become a huge shitstorm of misjudgement and incompetence. Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi... its just one goat fuck after another.
If you think Hillary Clinton can run the USA without doing irreparable harm just ask yourself what reaction North Korea would have to another Clinton presidency (that last one was a huge windfall for North Korea because Bill Clinton paid them off massively).
If you live in Seattle or San Francisco and you get nuked by North Korea and wake up dead don't come complaining on ET.
Relax nitwit, Hill is going to be a great POTUS.
And can you believe how many times he encouraged violence upon the protesters? How is this idiot even a thing?
Oh wait......conservatives.