Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
Thanks Tree46Thanks

Thread: Why Supply-Side Economics Is Right And Keynesian Economics Is Wrong

  1. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Work and value-adding production make an economy prosper, and eliminating disincentives to doing so, such as high taxation and regulatory burdens, stimulates growth.

    Why Supply-Side Economics Is Right And Keynesian Economics Is Wrong
    Hasn't worked out for the middle class, has it.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,332
    Thanks
    1560

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Hasn't worked out for the middle class, has it.
    Median household incomes exploded after Reagan's tax reforms were put in place.

    Then along came Bill Clinton and slashed taxes on uber rich investors and raised taxes on workers. The tax rates were the same for workers and investors when Reagan left office. When Clinton left office workers paid rates that were twice that of rich investors.
    Thanks from Macduff

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    The Obamaconomy received fiscal and monetary stimulus that was more than twice the cost to the US to fight WWII, in today's dollars.
    Yeah, we were in an economic crisis of epic proportions.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  4. #44
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,454
    Thanks
    4509

    From
    British expat in USA
    Workers were paying more tax under Reagan. The federal income tax rate was lowered, but all the unfunded mandates to states meant that state taxes were increasing, and then the social security contributions rose for the segment of the population who weren't already maxed out (in other words, regular workers again). One of my Reagan-supporting friends was crowing about lower taxes, and I went back and checked our tax returns for the 1980s and found our total taxes, as a proportion of our income, increased over that time.

    People simply didn't look beyond the small reduction in the federal income tax to see the offsetting increases everywhere else. That is, for regular workers. Of course, for the people at the top, overall taxes were slashed. In fact, one of Reagan's people admitted afterwards that slashing taxes at the top was the whole point of the exercise, and the small reduction for regular people was what it took to get that top-end tax reduction passed. It was nothing to do with helping the population as a whole, it was to do with helping themselves.
    Thanks from labrea and Panzareta

  5. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Median household incomes exploded after Reagan's tax reforms were put in place.

    Then along came Bill Clinton and slashed taxes on uber rich investors and raised taxes on workers. The tax rates were the same for workers and investors when Reagan left office. When Clinton left office workers paid rates that were twice that of rich investors.
    I wouldn't call an increase of less than $300 in median household income an explosion.


  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,332
    Thanks
    1560

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Yeah, we were in an economic crisis of epic proportions.
    It was a recession that ended in June of 2009, a few months after Obama took office.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,332
    Thanks
    1560

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    I wouldn't call an increase of less than $300 in median household income an explosion.

    That's funny since real median household income wasn't measured and tracked until 1984. It rose 8% from 1984 to 1988.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by tnbskts View Post
    Workers were paying more tax under Reagan. The federal income tax rate was lowered, but all the unfunded mandates to states meant that state taxes were increasing, and then the social security contributions rose for the segment of the population who weren't already maxed out (in other words, regular workers again). One of my Reagan-supporting friends was crowing about lower taxes, and I went back and checked our tax returns for the 1980s and found our total taxes, as a proportion of our income, increased over that time.

    People simply didn't look beyond the small reduction in the federal income tax to see the offsetting increases everywhere else. That is, for regular workers. Of course, for the people at the top, overall taxes were slashed. In fact, one of Reagan's people admitted afterwards that slashing taxes at the top was the whole point of the exercise, and the small reduction for regular people was what it took to get that top-end tax reduction passed. It was nothing to do with helping the population as a whole, it was to do with helping themselves.
    State and local governments found themselves in a similar position following George W's tax cuts.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    That's funny since real median household income wasn't measured and tracked until 1984. It rose 8% from 1984 to 1988.
    Hmm - a couple of reagan recessions made a bumpy ride for the middle class.

    Prior to the current recession, the deepest post-World War II economic downturn occurred in the early 1980s. According to the accepted arbiter of the economy’s ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 — lasting only six months — and a short period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.

    Reagan?s Recession | Pew Research Center
    Thanks from Panzareta

  10. #50
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    That's funny since real median household income wasn't measured and tracked until 1984. It rose 8% from 1984 to 1988.
    That is funny, because there seem to be plenty of sources for what you say didn't exist.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 7th July 2017, 04:13 AM
  2. Supply Side Economics
    By Æthelfrith in forum Economics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25th January 2015, 08:01 AM
  3. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 20th December 2013, 08:10 PM
  4. Oh The Horrors of Supply-Side Economics
    By Michael J in forum Economics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25th March 2012, 12:11 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed