Please watch this video and then tell me what you think...

[AlphaCrab]

Interesting--for some reason I was hypnotized, along with other Americans, into thinking that during the 1980's Reagan-style "trickle down" economics had worked when in fact, and in reality, it did not! I did not know that...

Reagan was really a joke, as far as economic policy was concerned. Today, in 2010, Eric Cantor and John Baynor are the jokesters, still trying to pose the same punchline to us gullible Americans, but they are no longer amusing.

In retrospect, Barack, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are the true American heroes in my good book! Thanks Geo. Very informative.

 

[Rita]

.
Income inequality worldwide - the United States ranks close to the top in having the largest gap between rich and poor (2009). The least inequality is in the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and the Czech Republic.
.

Top 11 Countries With the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor:
countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance


.

 

[futurebeachbum]

I forgot the Kennedy tax cuts:

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1960-1970 - Federal State Local

The point I am making is that if you want to increase government revenue historically the means to achieve this goal is to cut taxes.

I did watch the video and it is clear that Maddow does not care about properly financing the government. Her goal is to pit one group against the other and fuel a battle between the rich and the poor.

I think the entire tax code is a disaster and needs drastic overhaul. But my goal is to properly finance the government, not screw the rich, the poor or any other group.

Kennedy was also a balanced budget guy. His tax cuts were coupled with reasonable government spending.

I think that there are plenty of contrary stats to what the video says. The economy is an incredibly complicated thing that I do not believe is really understood by anyone.

Its complexity is further increased by our politicians-for-sale approach to governing.

I think that some tax cuts do help stimulate the economy when they are coupled with prudent spending reductions. Balancing the budget and harming the economy is just as bad as lowering taxes and not reducing spending levels.

If we keep spending the way we do (and constantly bailing our big business/big labor when they screw up, fighting foreign wars we don't need to and exporting all of our productive capacity overseas) and cut taxes at the same time, we deserve whatever happens to us (and it will be ugly.)

 

[Geo]

Very reasonable FBM!

 

[idlewind]

Why do I feel like you are completely ignoring my posts addressed directly to you (or not reading them)?

Maddow isn't presenting a thesis on how to increase revenue or how to properly fund gov't. She is showing the parallels between the rationale Republicans used to gain support for tax cuts then and now. And she is showing the harm done to our economy in the past and making the case that we will meet with the same outcome.

I am not ignoring your posts, I am trying to state that IMHO Maddow's thesis is irrevelant and incomplete. Government should only collect those taxes needed to fund its proper functions. History has clearly shown that reducing taxes raises revenue.
What Maddow wants is to redistribute wealth or fix personal outcomes using the power of the government to tax. IMHO this is morally wrong and is bad policy in the long term. Government should guarantee opportunity, not outcomes.
An example of why maddow is off base: If you have an example progressive tax code with no one paying taxes under $50,000; 50,001-100,000 at 10% taxes and over 100,000 @ 25% and you cut taxes 10% you will get the following outcomes: Under 50,000 will have no change in taxes; taxes on 100,000 will reduce from 10,000 per year to $9,000 and an income of 1 million will reduce taxes from 250,000 to 225,000. So for the 10 year period the group under $50,000 will have no more money, the group at 100,000 will have $10,000 more to spend and the 1 million group will have 250,000 more. But, over the period the under 50,000 group would still pay no taxes, the 100,000 group will pay 90,000 and the 1 million group will pay 2,250,000.
So demagogues like Maddow will focus on the first set of numbers and scream about the rich getting all the benefit and the poor getting screwed. The fact is THE POOR WERE PAYING NO TAXES TO START WITH. The rich have more because they start with more. They also pay far more taxes.
So maddow and co want to give the poor a check using money they confiscate from the rich. On the street this is called theft.
If you want to really get fair, do away with all the exemptions and deductions that allow those with high incomes to avoid paying taxes. You might also look at the Social Security tax which is a huge regressive tax.

 

[idlewind]

.
Income inequality worldwide - the United States ranks close to the top in having the largest gap between rich and poor (2009). The least inequality is in the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and the Czech Republic.
.

Top 11 Countries With the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor:
countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance


.

The top ten are mostly western style democracies with open societies and economies. Look at GDP growth for these compared to those with the least inequality.

 

[Linda]

I am not ignoring your posts, I am trying to state that IMHO Maddow's thesis is irrevelant and incomplete. Government should only collect those taxes needed to fund its proper functions. History has clearly shown that reducing taxes raises revenue.
What Maddow wants is to redistribute wealth or fix personal outcomes using the power of the government to tax. IMHO this is morally wrong and is bad policy in the long term. Government should guarantee opportunity, not outcomes.
An example of why maddow is off base: If you have an example progressive tax code with no one paying taxes under $50,000; 50,001-100,000 at 10% taxes and over 100,000 @ 25% and you cut taxes 10% you will get the following outcomes: Under 50,000 will have no change in taxes; taxes on 100,000 will reduce from 10,000 per year to $9,000 and an income of 1 million will reduce taxes from 250,000 to 225,000. So for the 10 year period the group under $50,000 will have no more money, the group at 100,000 will have $10,000 more to spend and the 1 million group will have 250,000 more. But, over the period the under 50,000 group would still pay no taxes, the 100,000 group will pay 90,000 and the 1 million group will pay 2,250,000.
So demagogues like Maddow will focus on the first set of numbers and scream about the rich getting all the benefit and the poor getting screwed. The fact is THE POOR WERE PAYING NO TAXES TO START WITH. The rich have more because they start with more. They also pay far more taxes.
So maddow and co want to give the poor a check using money they confiscate from the rich. On the street this is called theft.
If you want to really get fair, do away with all the exemptions and deductions that allow those with high incomes to avoid paying taxes. You might also look at the Social Security tax which is a huge regressive tax.

"Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul"

 

[30ashopper]

Best president evar!

 

[AndrewG]

How can you argue that Reagan's tax cuts didn't rescue our economy after Carter? I'm more concerned with reviving the economy than how much more some other family makes.

 

[LuciferSam]

How can you argue that Reagan's tax cuts didn't rescue our economy after Carter? I'm more concerned with reviving the economy than how much more some other family makes.

It's called the economic cycle. It's more to do with monetary policy than fiscal policy.