1. it's not 'reagonomics' either. it's simple free market theory
2. attempts to interfere with the market to produce a particular desired result inevitably end up reflecting poorly on the politicians who led the charge. you see anyone giving Bush credit for "priming the pump" and "saving us from a recession" by instituting the first stimulus?
No it's Reaganomics. I understand why you don't want to connect Reagan with the damage. Too bad. It was Reagan and Greenspan who implemented specific monetary and deregulatory policies. There are plenty of threads about the damages forgotten or swept under the "Reagan Legacy Project" so I'm not going to argue about it.
HAH. prior to Reagan we had stagflation and high tax rates.
Why is that? Could it be that Carter decided to do the politically deadly things that NEEDED to be done to fix the mess from Vietnam/LBJ/Nixon/Ford admins? Carter paid the price for doing the right things and was demonized by Reagan. Reagan benefited from those steps taken even though he would quickly destroy most of them, like the first adult energy policy our country had.
Reagan[/url] took office with a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent and left town in 1989 with the top rate for individuals at 28 percent.
Yeah, and how much debt did he enter office with and how much did he leave office with? :doh
I can't forget to mention the SS fund he created and then robbed to cover SOME of his tax shortfalls.
Pre-Reagan working for an extra $100 on Saturday netted you 30 dollars after tax. Post-Reagan you took home 72 dollars of the last $100 earned.
Nice misuse of numbers. Forgetting to mention that the top marginal tax payer is not an hourly worker and makes over $215,000, you don't take into account any tax breaks or loop holes or shelters... your specious figure looks like a sad attempt at bull****ting.
The marginal reward to work was more than doubled and the Reagan years saw individuals working more hours and 15.4 million jobs were added to the economy.
Yeah, that was part of Reaganomics, work more, get more money, buy more stuff, get yours. How'd that work out for the bottom 80%?
poverty is rising and millions of jobs are lost (growth hasn't been stagnant) because of abandonment of those free market principles, not because of faithfullness to them. "Compassionate Conservatism" turned out to mean "big-government-'conservatism'". As Bush himself put it "I abandoned my free market principles".
Ah yes, we abandoned Reagan's free market principles. Deregulation, unpaid for tax cuts, expansion of government, privatization... Some beginning with Nixon but the throttle was opened with Reagan.
Economic growth was about 2.8% with Ford/Carter, 3.2 under Reagan and 2.1 under Bush/Clinton. I won't bother with the sickening numbers under the Shrub. Of course there will be a period of increased GDP when you open the flood gates but after a while the water drains and you are left with mud.
which - as it is generally a matter of the commons - is a legitimate function of government.
Yes. And the rich man makes more use of the commons than the guy who got paid to build the road. Therefore the rich man pays more in taxes.
it changes our model not a whit. why do I wish to lower the taxes of those who are creating jobs by investing in business? because then they will do more of it.
As history shows, they will do so unwisely and cause bubbles. When you have more money than you know what to do with, you might be tempted to be more careless with it. Like the rest of the country, mortgage the house and buy some junk you didn't need with the equity.
i certainly will; as soon as you explain to millions of victims of starvation how wonderful state control of an economy is.
Ah, so you want to go outside the USA to make your point. I wonder why.
The Free Market is not a cure-all, and there are area's where it is the less optimum solution (we call these area's "neighborhood effects" or "issues of the commons"; basically they are items where something is not used up as it is consumed. Defense is an example, roads are another (though iffy), as is pollution); but what it is is a powerful mechanism for increasing mans' wealth and his standard of living. no one with even the most basic awareness of 20th century history can deny that with a straight face.
In other words you can't deny what I said so you'll blather on all around it.
wrong again. without the governmnent the rich man has to find a new area for his factory. the road builder didn't build a road because he got it in his head one day to try out his shiny new equipment; he did it because he was paid.
Sorry, there aren't any new areas for his factory that didn't have someone else build the road. Yes, he was paid to build the road. Why did he build the road? Because he got paid? OK, but why did the government pay to have the road built? To facilitate public travel and commerce. So the Rich man's business endeavor benefits from taxes paid to create the road built by a giovernment employee. So what came first and wouldn't exist without the other? :roll:
or they'll have to hire their own; which is also fine. unless of course you tax their economic activity to the point where they wouldn't make enough profit off of going to work to justify the added expense of a shovelor. then they will simply sit and wait for the stuff to melt or get smashed enough to drive on. or buy chains. either way, that snow shovelor is out of work.
You keep wanting to use snow shoveling. Stop. It's a strawman you created. I never mentioned SNOW shoveling in the original post.
they will indeed. but there is nothing that says they have to invest here, or that they have to invest in ventures. if you buy nothing but T-bills you are "investing". similarly, if you buy nothing but stocks available on the Nikkei you are 'investing'. when you reduce the return that people will see from putting their money into the American market, they will put less into the market in favor of safer (if smaller) returns or better returns elsewhere.
Keep squirming to try and avoid the truth.
there are trillions and trillions of dollars sitting off our shores right now because investors see no benefit to putting them in the American economy. when you increase their cost of doing so, you do not increase their incentive.
source please.
on the contrary, it is elementary. and fortunately backed up by recent experience. paid much attention to new york or california lately?
they're losing quite a few members of this class.
On the contrary, it's stupidity. We have history. History shows that people have invested and made money even when the marginal tax rate was 90%.
more 60% of Americans own stocks; and even more work for those that do. small businessowners are considered part of 'the rich' as their business income is considered theirs. when you try to 'get the rich'; these people are inevitibly collateral damage.
LOL, you're not going to try and make an argument about peoples 401k are you? Yeah, >60% of Americans have no idea what their 401k investments are or how to manage it and when the market tanks so does their 401k. Thanks a lot democrats, for displacing the pension system with 401ks, removing another responsibility of corporations to their employees. :doh
