John McCain's solution our economic woes is tax cuts, a plan not atypical of Republicans of any stripe. But will tax cuts build a single bridge, fill a single pothole, pay a single teacher or create a single new job? No, absolutely not!
UNLESS
You believe that tax cuts alone lead to increased economic activity. This is the justification we have heard from Republicans since Ronald Reagan embraced economist Arthur Laffer's theory that reducing tax rates leads inexorably to increased economic activity. The theory is that reducing taxes reduces the cost of doing business to such an extent that businesses, especially small businesses, will expand operations, hire more employees, increase inventory and profits. This expanded economic activity will generate so much additional profit that government revenue, even at the lower tax rate, will actually increase.
GHW Bush (Bush 41) famously called this "voodoo economics" when he was campaigning against Reagan. However, after Reagan chose him as VP candidate, Bush senior embraced the theory.
Republicans point to the economic recovery since 2001, anemic as it was, as proof of the theory. But let's look at that assumption carefully. What else was going on economically during that period between 2001 and about 2005? The most obvious is that Fed interest rates were the lowest in modern history, less than 2% for three full years between December, 2001 and Dec 2004.
Now imagine you're a small business owner and business is not bad, but it could be better. You're considering increasing inventory, maybe starting a new line of products. Or you're a construction contractor and you want to bid on a big job, but you need to buy some equipment and hire more workers. Which do you think would make you more comfortable in that expansion, cutting your tax rate from 30% to 25%, or being able to get a loan at 1.5% instead of 5%? There is no question that taxes are a significant expense for a business, and figure into business decisions. However, taxes are due only if you're making a profit. The ability to get a low cost loan is crucial to a small business. Tax considerations come 'way down in the list of concerns.
What kind of businessman makes a serious business decision based upon tax rate alone? Certainly not a small businessman. Now, for a large corporation, tax rates are very important. A huge international corporation might give its top executives a bonus if tax rates decrease (and therefore quarterly profits increase).
Cutting taxes panders to the economically unsophisticated and the selfish, but does very little to drive an economy, at least at the tax levels extant in the USA for the past several decades. Far more conducive to expanding business, and therefore the economy, is the interest rate.
The effect of tax cuts on budget deficits, however, is enormous. The largest peace-time budget deficits in history (as a per cent of GDP) happened under Ronald Reagan and his supply-side tax cuts. The second highest (highest in actual dollars) happened under our current president. It is no coincidence that both these presidents embraced Laffer economics and the magic quality of tax cuts.




Comments: 14
According to Kiplinger.com -
BREAKDOWN OF INCOME AND TAXES PAID BY CATEGORY
Income Category 2005 AGI Percent of all income Percent of income taxes paid
Top 1% Over $364,657 21% 39%
Top 5% Over $145,283 36% 60%
Top 10% Over $103,912 46% 70%
Top 25% Over $62,068 68% 86%
Top 50% Over $30,881 87% 97%
Bottom 50% Under $30,882 13% 3%
Source: IRS
Check out the top 50% which would be my income if I were working....97%
top 1% paid 39%....
Historically, that has been proven NOT to be the case. Workers' pay has hardly budged since Reagan was in office, while executives pay has skyrocketed. I could quote statistics, as Donna has, but these numbers have been published here repeatedly. Lalffer's theories are...well, laughable, I would say.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The top 50% of earners make 87% of the money and pay 97% of the taxes. So? How does this conflict with Gary's point that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy?
I do not have a problem with the top 1% paying 39% of the taxes when you realize that they make about half again as much as the WHOLE BOTTOM 50%! Remember this: That bottom 50% spends EVERY DIME they can get. The top 1% doesn't, so if you want to stimulate the economy, it would be much more effective to give the money to the poor.
I am retired, no house payments, no debt, kids grown and gone, no deductions except our personal ones. We travel all over the world every year. I bet I pay more tax than you do. I don't like to pay taxes. No one does, but I also don't like to see our country run into the ground by people like you who want the debt to just keep mounting to pay for the stupid war. It is selfish and irresponsible.
The comment made in the article: Cutting taxes panders to the economically unsophisticated and the selfish, but does very little to drive an economy" is totally wrong...
This supports the argument that the Bush tax cuts have NOT been for the average man trying to: I will quote a recent statement by our illustrious leader - " raise a family" - or this one " I know how hard it is to raise a family " first of all he dose not have a clue... and secondly his tax cuts had nothing to do, to stimulate the economy at this time...
The tax cuts were really given to the top 1 %...and they paid less taxes - they certainly should not be considered unsophisticated - selfish - maybe, and that is why it dose little to drive an economy....its the guy who is paying most of the taxes and spending every dime he has to survive that allows for ANY economy....
In either case you haven't explained why.
Economically unsophisticated Republicans hear "cut taxes" and don't bother to think any further - that they benefit more from maintaining infrastructure than they do from the few dollars they'll save in taxes. Republican leadership panders to them by throwing a few bones their way.
Wealthy Republicans are sophisticated enough to know that they benefit hugely from tax breaks, but don't depend so much on infrastructure: private schools, gated communities, etc. Republilcan leadership panders to them by rolling tax cut largesse their way while talking about wink wink family values (that will keep the riff raff out of their way), military strength (that will keep the riff raff occupied with patriotic wars while keeping the value of their stock in defense contractors up).
As for Lex, I quit paying attention to his nonsense long ago. He has contributed not one cogent thought in any of his ranting comments.
Thanks for your insightful comments. We've both written on Gather about the rich who shirk paying their fair share of taxes. As you point out, they make most of the money, they SHOULD pay most of the taxes. Furthermore, while the richest 1% of Americans make 89% of the income, they control an even larger share of America's assets.
All of which adds to the argument that a tax cut, especially one aimed at upper-income folks, does very little to stimulate the economy. And should lead to some discussion of whether the real economic stimulus - low interest rates - is being overused by this administration to shore up its blunders in other areas of the economy.
Here's what she quoted from Kiplinger:
Top 1% Over $364,657 21% 39%
Top 5% Over $145,283 36% 60%
Top 10% Over $103,912 46% 70%
Top 25% Over $62,068 68% 86%
Top 50% Over $30,881 87% 97%
Bottom 50% Under $30,882 13% 3%
Let's construct an imaginary society of 100 individuals, each representing 1% of the population, and let's say the TOTAL income for all of them is $100.
So the top guy gets $21
The next four get a total of $15...$3.75 each.
The next five get a total of $10...two bucks each
The next fifteen get $22...or $1.47 each.
The next 25 get $19...or 76 cents each.
The bottom 50 get $13 total...exactly 26 cents each.
Now, I realize this is an oversimplification. The income figure for each category is an average number, and not every person gets the same amount. But bear with me for a moment, and I think you will see my point.
If the top 10 people, whose total income is $46, almost half of the $100, gave $13 to the bottom 50, it would double the income of each of those 50 people! And the top 10% would STILL have a third ($33) of the total. Would the loss of less than a third of their income disincentivise them, cause them to quit striving to make even more money? I don't think so. And just think what a vast improvement that would be for half the people in my little imaginary country!
would understand and I have to remind myself what happens when we "assume"...right..
When one reads articles about 75 Million dollar estates, all the way up to 1 billion dollar home built in India (one of many other countries of despair and hunger) one cannot comprehend the % of tax they pay and still have the where with all to maintain a lifestyle of private privileges...that is NOT saying they should not have the benefits that wealth of that magnitude enjoys...it is simply saying they are not the ones who need to worry about their taxes...their money makes money at their level..and God bless um - but they are not the ones who need the tax cut...and this administration has mislead the American public into thinking the majority of hard working Americans are getting one and they are NOT.
For instance...One of the most recent publications of the Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq is $516,534,086,818..................That is where the largest part of our tax dollar is going at the present...if any of you believe that tax cuts alone lead to increased economic activity and the comment "Republicans point to the economic recovery since 2001, anemic as it was, as proof of the theory."............."BOTH statements are blown
to H E - double LL " with the cost of the war today...
We are saddling future generations of Americans with a huge debt, and the war that is causing that debt is ill conceived and self destructive. McCain wants to continue, and maybe even escalate that war while he gives tax cuts to the rich. I cannot even think of an adequate adjective to describe how abominable I think that is.
McCain has advocated pre-emptive strikes against both Iran and North Korea.
The man has never seen a war he didn't like.
Some Republicans say that we are at war, so we need a leader with military experience.
My answer is...let's end the war, and then McCain's military experience isn't needed!