• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth?

Objective Voice said:
For me, the question is alittle different.

We've been told that tax cuts spur economic growth. FFG has pointed to an article that essentially states that during the Bush-43 presidency economic growth increased (on avg.) 2.3% - a rather modest increase given the amount of money that went back into the pockets of million+ wage earners, money that we've been told these wage earners would use to reinvest in their businesses to greatly improve the economy. And yet, we ended up with a deep recession.

My question has always been if tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest wage earners were to spur economic growth, why then didn't unemployment ever fall below 4% since 2001? I read a report a few weeks ago that illustrated that between 2001-2008 unemployment fluxuated between 4-6.5%. Granted, that's alittle above what I think most economist say we should shot for (3-5%), but still, why didn't unemployment remain low if tax cuts were suppose to spur economic growth?
Click to expand...

argue against a flat tax. we who pay most of the taxes tire of dems buying votes by calling for our taxes-and our taxes alone to go up and up and up when we get no additional benefits for paying more and more and more
 
TurtleDude said:
Grant said:
democrats gain power by spending our money on their voters. If the dems were to cut social spending they would lose their power to buy the votes of those who get more from government spending than they pay in taxes. SInce the dems won't cut their own throats, we have to cut taxes.
Click to expand...

Sure they're being bribed with the money of their fellow citizens, TD, but it should be added that this is also class warfare, and racial politics as well. They can't seem to see how much this will hurt their country in the years to follow. They seem more interested in what's best for the party, not the country.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
TurtleDude said:
Sure they're being bribed with the money of their fellow citizens, TD, but it should be added that this is also class warfare, and racial politics as well. They can't seem to see how much this will hurt their country in the years to follow. They seem more interested in what's best for the party, not the country.
Click to expand...

absolutely

plucking the golden geese might gain them some power now but when the geese fly away all the parasites will have no one to feed them
Click to expand...
 
but we will roast the geese upon our fires and pick our teeth with their smaller bones.

and it will be good.
 
haymarket said:
but we will roast the geese upon our fires and pick our teeth with their smaller bones.

and it will be good.
Click to expand...

good dem mantra-kill of the geese and then you will starve w hen you no longer have t heir golden eggs to pay for your goodies
 
haymarket said:
but we will roast the geese upon our fires and pick our teeth with their smaller bones.

and it will be good.
Click to expand...

That's not very likely, Haymarket.

The rich can easily afford to protect themselves from the rabble or, more probably, they'll just move elsewhere. If you wants more jobs to leave the country, that philosophy will certain help the push along.
 
TurtleDude said:
good dem mantra-kill of the geese and then you will starve w hen you no longer have t heir golden eggs to pay for your goodies
Click to expand...

This is an example of the arrogance that some of the rich will display.

They think they're irreplaceable, that nobody else is capable of doing what they do. That they're special, better than everyone else.

300 million people in this country, TD. There's always someone to take your place. That's the market for you.

And people accuse liberals of being elitist? Listen to this guy. He thinks the country can't get along without him and his kind to provide for us. That he's more important than everyone else because he has larger numbers in some computerized bank account.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
democrats gain power by spending our money on their voters. If the dems were to cut social spending they would lose their power to buy the votes of those who get more from government spending than they pay in taxes. SInce the dems won't cut their own throats, we have to cut taxes.
Click to expand...

When democrats support policies, it's buying votes, when republicans support policy, it's not. This is one of those retarded whines that people keep making because it's easy and requires no real thought to formulate, but never understand why it doesn't get taken seriously by any one else except those others on the extreme.
 
there are always geese for the plucking and eating
 
Grant said:
That's not very likely, Haymarket.

The rich can easily afford to protect themselves from the rabble or, more probably, they'll just move elsewhere. If you wants more jobs to leave the country, that philosophy will certain help the push along.
Click to expand...

perhaps.perhaps not.

It has happened. And it could again.

If people want to depart the nation because their taxes are being raised 3 points, then that is on them. I do not see it happening.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
This is an example of the arrogance that some of the rich will display.

They think they're irreplaceable, that nobody else is capable of doing what they do. That they're special, better than everyone else.

300 million people in this country, TD. There's always someone to take your place. That's the market for you.

And people accuse liberals of being elitist? Listen to this guy. He thinks the country can't get along without him and his kind to provide for us. That he's more important than everyone else because he has larger numbers in some computerized bank account.
Click to expand...

rich people don't exist for the purpose of funding your socialist dreams. and the fact is states with high taxes are losing wealthy tax payers. and when Sweden had massive taxes, most of their star athletes moved to monte carlo. SO you can attack me personally because you are jealous and ignore the point I was making which had nothing to do with me personally
 
Redress said:
When democrats support policies, it's buying votes, when republicans support policy, it's not. This is one of those retarded whines that people keep making because it's easy and requires no real thought to formulate, but never understand why it doesn't get taken seriously by any one else except those others on the extreme.
Click to expand...

there is a difference between buying votes by promising your minions the money of other people versus gaining votes by telling people that you will protect what they have earned. Of course to some who think that the government really owns all the wealth I can see why the positions would be seen as similar
 
haymarket said:
perhaps.perhaps not.

It has happened. And it could again.
Click to expand...

Where and when has it hppened?
If people want to depart the nation because their taxes are being raised 3 points, then that is on them. I do not see it happening.
Click to expand...

I see it happening every day. I'm in Central America at the moment and many are arriving from the United States, and Europe, daily.

Canadians are certainly profiting from higher US taxes and the refusal of the Obama administration to drill for oil. Our oil companies are booming as a result The Corporate tax rate in Canada is about 24% which makes it quite attractive for companies to move north. As well, doctors are among "the rich" and they're leaving also.

These BHO plans are among the worst examples of short term thinking I've witnessed in my lifetime. They'll have the support of the 'something for nothing crowd' but it will all be temporary. Europe is cutting back while Americans sink deeper in debt. I never thought I'd see that day.
Click to expand...
 
You are unfamiliar with the concept of revolution?
 
from Turtle Dude

rich people don't exist for the purpose of funding your socialist dreams
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.
 
Tax cuts promote economic growth by not decreasing capital in the hands of consumers. That doesn't mean that all other economic factors be damned. 2000 to 2010 was characterized by a government that over borrowed, consumers that over borrowed, overseas governments that overborrowed....everyone was borrowing and once the thread began to be pulled, the entire international economy went to crap.

Did the Bush tax cuts help? Yes. But they where countered by bad decisions in the governments of the world. You can't control everything.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Tax cuts promote economic growth by not decreasing capital in the hands of consumers. That doesn't mean that all other economic factors be damned. 2000 to 2010 was characterized by a government that over borrowed, consumers that over borrowed, overseas governments that overborrowed....everyone was borrowing and once the thread began to be pulled, the entire international economy went to crap.

Did the Bush tax cuts help? Yes. But they where countered by bad decisions in the governments of the world. You can't control everything.
Click to expand...

Do you have statistics and evidence to present to us that the tax cuts did do what you claim they did?
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle Dude



What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.
Click to expand...


To relieve the poor of there money
 
donc said:
Yet President Clinton looked at the problem of a creeping recession and came up with a different solution.Amazing isn't it? :2wave:

< President Clinton in 1993 proposed to raise the highest marginal tax rate immediately from 31% to 39.6%. In a Wall Street Journal article, Martin Feldstein, the former chief economic advisor to President Reagan and then as well as now a professor of economics at Harvard, opined that "Mr. Clinton's proposal to raise the marginal tax rates of high-income individuals would hurt incentives, weaken the economy and waste investment dollars.">

< And what were the consequences? In the seven years that followed, the unemployment rate decreased steadily, every single year, until it reached 4% in 2000. >

It's time to tax the rich - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
For me, the question is alittle different.

We've been told that tax cuts spur economic growth. FFG has pointed to an article that essentially states that during the Bush-43 presidency economic growth increased (on avg.) 2.3% - a rather modest increase given the amount of money that went back into the pockets of million+ wage earners, money that we've been told these wage earners would use to reinvest in their businesses to greatly improve the economy. And yet, we ended up with a deep recession.

My question has always been if tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest wage earners were to spur economic growth, why then didn't unemployment ever fall below 4% since 2001? I read a report a few weeks ago that illustrated that between 2001-2008 unemployment fluxuated between 4-6.5%. Granted, that's alittle above what I think most economist say we should shot for (3-5%), but still, why didn't unemployment remain low if tax cuts were suppose to spur economic growth?
Click to expand...

And once again, correlation =/= causation.
 
so RightinNYC

why don't you take the promises that were made in the debate over the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and present your own authoritative evidence that they did just what they promised?

I simply cannot find any.
 
My take on why the 2000's had such low growth coming out of the recession


High personal debt levels for the middle class, an expanding trade deficit, and concentration of wealth at the highest levels being the primary factors


High personal debt prevents savings and investing by the middle class in most cases, and it limits consumption that would spur economic growth. Alan Greenspan encouraged Americans in the early 2000s to take out home equity loans to further consumption as a means to spur economic activity.

The trade deficit, money leaving the US for goods and services is of course money that is not going to be used to create economic activity in the US.

Last but not least, and does partially explain why the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy did not produce noticable results. Wealth has been concentrating in the hands of the wealthy for the last few decades, and dramatically so in the last couple. There is a realistic limit to the consumption a person can do (unless the very wealthy all want to build billion dollar homes like one of the owners of Reliance in India has done). This then requires them to make investments to spur economic growth, but they are not required to make investments that will produce productive jobs in the US. If they are not investing in projects that produce productive jobs in the US, or consume more that will create jobs as well, then the tax cuts will not spur on economic growth in the US
 
haymarket said:
Do you have statistics and evidence to present to us that the tax cuts did do what you claim they did?
Click to expand...

Gross National Product
Gross national product (GNP), a measure of a nation's wealth, is also directly affected by federal taxes. An easy way to see how taxes affect output is to look at the aggregate demand equation:

GNP = C + I + G + NX

where:

•C = consumption spending by individuals
•I = investment spending (business spending on machinery, etc.),
•G = government purchases
•NX = net exports
Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP. As you would expect, lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby, increasing GNP. (To learn more, read Economic Indicators To Know.)

Reducing taxes, therefore, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods. (To learn more, read Economics Basics.)

Tax Cuts and the Economy
Tax cuts, when used properly, have stimulated the economy. Many credit President George W. Bush's tax cuts for moving the economy out of recession. Similarly, in 1964, Congress enacted an 18% cut in personal taxes to spur growth. The legislation was designed to encourage consumer spending - many believe that it succeeded admirably as consumers delivered a textbook reaction.

According to a December 2004 article in Celtia.info, a magazine distributed in Celtic countries, tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland's per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom's average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe.

According to a May 2007 article in the Herald Tribune, tax cuts in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary before their entry in the EU have spurred economic growth in those countries.

Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?

But I never said that reducing taxes is the only factor in the economy, just that it has a positive affect. The negatives may out weight any tax cut.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Gross National Product
Gross national product (GNP), a measure of a nation's wealth, is also directly affected by federal taxes. An easy way to see how taxes affect output is to look at the aggregate demand equation:

GNP = C + I + G + NX

where:

•C = consumption spending by individuals
•I = investment spending (business spending on machinery, etc.),
•G = government purchases
•NX = net exports
Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP. As you would expect, lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby, increasing GNP. (To learn more, read Economic Indicators To Know.)

Reducing taxes, therefore, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods. (To learn more, read Economics Basics.)

Tax Cuts and the Economy
Tax cuts, when used properly, have stimulated the economy. Many credit President George W. Bush's tax cuts for moving the economy out of recession. Similarly, in 1964, Congress enacted an 18% cut in personal taxes to spur growth. The legislation was designed to encourage consumer spending - many believe that it succeeded admirably as consumers delivered a textbook reaction.

According to a December 2004 article in Celtia.info, a magazine distributed in Celtic countries, tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland's per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom's average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe.

According to a May 2007 article in the Herald Tribune, tax cuts in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary before their entry in the EU have spurred economic growth in those countries.

Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?

But I never said that reducing taxes is the only factor in the economy, just that it has a positive affect. The negatives may out weight any tax cut.
Click to expand...

I think the information regarding Ireland needs to be seriously updated
 
ksu_aviator said:
Gross National Product
Gross national product (GNP), a measure of a nation's wealth, is also directly affected by federal taxes. An easy way to see how taxes affect output is to look at the aggregate demand equation:

GNP = C + I + G + NX

where:

•C = consumption spending by individuals
•I = investment spending (business spending on machinery, etc.),
•G = government purchases
•NX = net exports
Consumer spending typically equals two-thirds of GNP. As you would expect, lowering taxes raises disposable income, allowing the consumer to spend additional sums, thereby, increasing GNP. (To learn more, read Economic Indicators To Know.)

Reducing taxes, therefore, pushes out the aggregate demand curve as consumers demand more goods and services with their higher disposable incomes. Supply side tax cuts are aimed to stimulate capital formation. If successful, the cuts will shift both aggregate demand and aggregate supply because the price level for a supply of goods will be reduced, which often leads to an increase in demand for those goods. (To learn more, read Economics Basics.)

Tax Cuts and the Economy
Tax cuts, when used properly, have stimulated the economy. Many credit President George W. Bush's tax cuts for moving the economy out of recession. Similarly, in 1964, Congress enacted an 18% cut in personal taxes to spur growth. The legislation was designed to encourage consumer spending - many believe that it succeeded admirably as consumers delivered a textbook reaction.

According to a December 2004 article in Celtia.info, a magazine distributed in Celtic countries, tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland's per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom's average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe.

According to a May 2007 article in the Herald Tribune, tax cuts in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary before their entry in the EU have spurred economic growth in those countries.

Do Tax Cuts Stimulate The Economy?

But I never said that reducing taxes is the only factor in the economy, just that it has a positive affect. The negatives may out weight any tax cut.
Click to expand...

uh - we live in the USA - not Ireland and as others have said, Ireland is in deep doodoo right now.

Second, lets see the stats that prove that tax cuts lead to more jobs right here in the good old USA. That is the mantra we hear constantly from the right that if we give the rich more money to keep then they will create more jobs for the poor slobs underneath them. So lets see that please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom