Quote from piezoe:
Entire screed edited for brevity and sanity's sake. Seven paragraphs of Krugmanite tripe to show how one can recite unsubstantiated platitudes and demonstrate the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy multiple times..
It's really not worth the time to respond, but let's just take one section:
Quote from piezoe:
"Job growth is related to economic health and/or large government expenditures and borrowing. Periods of twentieth century job growth were accompanied by high marginal tax rates. One of the highest periods of job growth, the 1950's, was accompanied by very high marginal tax rates."
Ask Putin how well it worked to rely on gov't borrowing and expenditures for a robust economy in the old country.
Every dollar the gov't "borrows" is taken from the private sector--either from taxes or out of thin air (which will have to be paid by later generations or inflated away). The gov't has no inherent resources. It takes and typically misallocates via taxes and borrowing.
As for the 50s, the soundbite that ultra-high tax rates were responsible for prosperity is a crock. First of all, there were more loopholes, deductions, shelters, etc. back then, and practically no one in the upper brackets paid those exact rates. Moreover the famous "90%" rate was for people making $300K+ (a huge sum back then), and you probably had to make much more than $300K to hit that bracket. In addition, other taxes (state, local, property, gasoline, tobacco, hidden, etc.) have grown by leaps and bounds since the 50s, affecting all classes.
Regardless of tax rates, if you step back and look at the bigger picture in the 50s, government was smaller-MUCH smaller-than it is now. Tens of thousands of new pages of regulations now strangle many people wanting to start a new business--or just stay in business. Taxpayers didn't support Medicare or the myriad of "free" housing, medical, education, food stamp, etc. programs. No wonder they didn't have our huge debts to pay off!
As for ultra-rich not really creating jobs, I guess Rupert Murdoch's 53,000 employees are just being deceived? That may be an extreme example, but not when you consider thousands of other top-bracketers who employ others either directly or indirectly through investments.
I'll take that any day over 100,000 "shovel ready" jobs involving digging ditches and then filling them back up again.