Oh and again, our capital gains rate through the 1960s was 25%, which is higher than the current rate of 20%. It appears that none of your fearmongering in order to promote coddling the rich makes economic sense, historically.

For the record, I think Jimmy Carter was beat up a bit more than he should have. Yes, inability to act on Iran, had a direct effect on the massive gas shortages.

He helped broker the Egypt/Israel deal, he did have a good job growth rate, but on teh flip side had a HUGe unemployment figure, which makes no sense to me at all.

11% unemployment and the huge gas lines probably are what put him out of the White house, I am guessing (I was certainly not old enough to vote).

IN fairness to carter, and quite a few presidents before him, The Fed had more to do with the economic health of the nation than the Presidents.

I think often we blame/give credit to the Presidents for the economy, when often it is the timing of other events and the dreaded Fed (I hate this instituion with a SEETHING passion) and presidents and opponents of such presidents latch onto the good/bad of the time period, taking credit, blaming when in reality, they have little.

However, that does not change the fact that Investment is the key to economic growth. The economy can not grow substantially without it. Consumer spending keeps it moving every day though, and right now, Consumer Confidence SUCKS ...badly..

Obama needs to look at japan, and their lost decade. It didnt work there, it wont work here. Period. The Fed in this case is out of weapons to use also.

Is obama 100% to blame? no. Is he to blame for keeping it stuck in neutral? A bit yes. He promised uneder 8% if he got his first stimulus. He is no where near that.

In politics, you start making such blanket statements, you better back them up, or get REALLY close. He is not close, and it may get much worse before better.

Carter probably helped in ending what was called "stagflation" by putting Volcker (I think that is his name) in as the Fed chairman. That man, more than any president (including Reagen) had much to do with the huge economic growth of the 80s.

So, as much as I think carter was not great, he was not so bad as many think, and as much as I think Reagen was 'okay' we was not some conservative icon to be cherished and revered.

For me, neither party represents my views at all. A little of both interest me, but it is like watching WWF wrestling. Its all a show. After the cameras are off, they are all eating and drinking together, regardless of how they voted.

I think Carter also had ahuge capital gains tax cut, didnt he? I may be wrong, but I remember something about this in college, I can go look it up if you want, but I think I am right. From 41 to 29 or something like that. It was a double digit drop.

Abusive ad hominem involves insulting or belittling a source of informatin in order to attack its claim or invalidate its argument, but can also involve pointing out apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the sources character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

OK, true. Ignore the facts, though. Refrigerators and stoves are not reserved only for the rich. Typical diversionary tactic to ignore the truth.

"Obama needs to look at japan, and their lost decade. It didnt work there, it wont work here. Period. The Fed in this case is out of weapons to use also. "

Yes he should look at Japan. And what is the lesson from Japan? Japan's problem was too much capital, not too little. Supply far exceeded demand. There was a giant savings glut there. Their restrictive fiscal policy in the early 1990s undermined the possibility of a recovery. When Japan expanded their fiscal policy in the mid-1990s, recovery began.

Yes we should absolutely look at Japan in the 1990s, and the United States under Hoover. And we should stop listening to people who keep trying to convince us that we have a problem of inflation, not deflation, and that the solution is to contract the government instead of provide stimulus. When we listened to that before we ended up in a depression.

http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/chapters_preview/35/2iie2628.pdf

"Is obama 100% to blame? no. Is he to blame for keeping it stuck in neutral? A bit yes. He promised uneder 8% if he got his first stimulus. He is no where near that.
"

He also didn't get the full stimulus he asked for, so that's an unfair criticism. Not to mention economic projections were given before he took office and we realized we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Obama's stimulus turned the economy around. We were contracting by 5% in the 4th quarter, and by mid-2009 we were growing. That's success by any standard, but he won't get credit for it. Instead the people who got us into this mess keep giving us bad advice, keep trying to slash the state in the middle of a recession. It's madness.

This statement ""Those Americans Make Next to Nothing."
Totally demolished and the author in a state of hysterics.

Because a microwave costs the same as paying income taxes. At least you can stop pretending to be against tax hikes.

"Kids, we can't afford to keep our food at a safe temperature this year because we have to pay our taxes."

Historic table of tax rates and revenue
1951-1963 Tax rates (lowest/highest) 20/91% Revenue as a % of GDP 7.7%
1964-1981 Tax rates (lowest/highest) 14/70% Revenue as a % of GDP 8%
1982-1986 Tax rates (lowest/highest) 11/50% Revenue as a % of GDP 8.3%

As tax rates decreased revenues went up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375951025762400.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

And that's obviously accounting for population growth and inflation right? Of course not. Individual tax receipts went down. I've shown this at least four times.

2nd, you must be talking about Europe.
99.9% of American households have refrigerators, and American tax rates are substantially lower than European rates.
I'm sorry to keep demolishing your fallacies, but you beg for it kid.

The source for all the stats I post on appliance ownership.

Straight from the US Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/publications/extended-05.html

Tax collections accounting for inflation. Notice the decline? Yeah me too. Collections didn't return to 1981 levels until 1985, and that's due to population & productivity growth.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

Annual growth in tax collections:

Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

Individual Income Taxes (millions)5

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

President Years # Prev yr Last yr Increase Inflation Adjusted
Revenue Revenue average
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt 34-46 13 $ 2.0 $ 39.3 1865.0% 50.8% 121.3%
Truman 47-53 7 39.3 69.6 77.1% 36.9% 3.7%
Eisenhower 54-61 8 69.6 94.4 35.6% 11.9% 2.4%
Kennedy 62-64 3 94.4 112.6 19.3% 3.7% 4.8%
L Johnson 65-69 5 112.6 186.9 66.0% 18.4% 6.9%
Nixon 70-75 6 186.9 279.1 49.3% 46.6% 0.3%
Ford 76-77 2 279.1 355.6 27.4% 12.6% 6.4%
Carter 78-81 4 355.6 599.3 68.5% 50.0% 3.0%
Reagan 82-89 8 599.3 990.7 65.3% 36.4% 2.4%
Bush 90-93 4 990.7 1153.5 16.4% 16.5% -0.0%

Studies by Europeans show that their higher tax rates don't produce better results than in the United States.

Take this Italian report on cancer survival.

We live in an age of unprecedented medical innovation. Unfortunately, most of today’s cutting-edge research is conducted outside Europe, which was once a pioneer in this field. About 78% of global biotechnology research funds are spent in the U.S., compared to just 16% in Europe. Americans therefore have better access to modern drugs. One result is that in the U.S., the annual death rate from cancer is 196 per 100,000 people, compared to 235 in Britain, 244 in France, 270 in Italy and 273 in Germany.
It is both a tragedy and an embarrassment that Europe hasn’t kept up with the U.S. in saving and improving lives. What’s to blame? The Continent’s misguided policies and state-run health-care systems. The reasons vary from country to country, but broadly speaking, the custodians of public health budgets aren’t devoting the necessary resources to get patients the most modern and advanced medicines, and are happier with the status quo. We often see news headlines about promising new cures and vaccines next to headlines about patients who can’t get life-saving drugs as politicians impose ever stricter prescription controls on doctors.

Yeah stop lying, TC. You didn't get that chart from any of the excel sheets on the census page. You can't even get your fake citations right, you keep changing them.

Please stop using the inflammatory phrase "tax hikes on the poor". The approved Tea Party nomenclature is now "broadening the tax base". Thank you.

;-)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/09/Understanding-Poverty-in-the-United-States-Surprising-Facts-About-Americas-Poor

Real citation to replace fake citation.

Somehow, Teatleton's posts have digressed from misleading post about taxation to cancer in Italy. Facts have won yet again.

TC - the conclusion I draw from that Italian report is not that the US has better access to medical care (which, incidentally, is totally unconnected to the location in which biotech research takes place) but that Europe gets much better bang for its buck. From the OECD's 2009 figures on total healthcare expenditure:

Total 2009 expenditure on health/capita, US$ purchasing power parity US expenditure (%) Cancers deaths per 100,000 US improvement (%)
United States 7960 - 196 -
France 3978 200% 244 20%
Germany 4218 189% 273 28%
Italy 3137 254% 270 27%
United Kingdom 3487 228% 235 17%
European average 3705 218% 255.5 23%

I'm pretty sure that table won't be readable once pasted, but the crux is that the US total healthcare spend per capita is 218% of Europe's. For that, they get a 23% improvement in cancer survival. So much for the market knowing best!

2nd- I guess you don't realize that Heritage used the census data I linked.
Not surprising for an individual who has nothing to add, but ad hominem's.

I appreciate the fact that you gave up the ludicrous fantasy that Americans of any income level do not have refrigerators in their homes.

Thank you for posting.

Yeah what chart was that again? All your "link" had were excel sheets. Oh but I'm sure Heritage claimed they got it from the census, but you didn't bother to check.

I have nothing to add but fact. You have nothing to add except a poor appreciation for sarcasm. What was the point of your refrigerator post to begin with? Am I supposed to believe that the mere fact that a family owns a refrigerator, that means they should pay more in taxes?

Public service announcement:

Please do not attempt to communicate with Tettleton's Chew, as substantial evidence has been collected from his posts to indicate that he is indeed a troll. He provided "statistics" cited from an unreliable source, however, the statistics he gave completely contradicted his source. He then went to claim later that he used a totally different source, which also contradicted his claims. Please do not blame the lunacy of his statements on his sources, blame it on him. He butchered the facts.

The Washington Post's attack on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan lost all credibility with me as soon as I read this...." it risks not producing enough revenue to fund the government’s needs."

There is so much wrong with this statement it is difficult to know where to begin.
It seem ludicrous to feign outrage over a deficit without even mentioning that our current administration is running the largest deficits in the countries history.
The phrase "the government's needs" is simply scary.
When one of the landmarks of American journalism is scared of the government's needs instead of the people's need then its time to realize that landmark's journalistic credibility is vanishing.

Lower taxes have in the past, in ...both Canada and America yielded higher tax revenue. So anyone who advocates for raising taxes to pay this deficit clearly doesn't understand basic economics such as the Laffer Curve...

On the flip side of this thread's subject, High Taxes decrease revenues, stunt growth, and lead to damaging inefficiencies.
1-People with high schools will forego work because making more income pushes them into a higher tax bracket where they get to keep less and less of what they make. A punitive progressive tax code penalizes hard work and expansion.
So the world's best (substitute any profession) eye surgeon caps his number of surgeries and spend more time golfing because of high marginal tax rates. Hope you don't need a delicate eye surgery that requires the best of the best.
A spouse may quit her second job. A worker may turn down overtime. Why in the world would you want a tax code that stifles ambition like this?
Also a high progressive tax code literally drives the rich out of the country. The wealthy who can afford to move from a high tax environment to a low one. We see this currently in migration between states. New Jersey and New York lose population while Texas gains dramatically.
Also high taxes cause people to take choose inferior products, services, etc because of tax policy, to get a tax deduction.
Cash for clunkers is a perfect example. People got rid of perfectly good cars and spent money on news ones when they could have kept their old car and spent the money on something more productive and efficient, paying down bills, saving etc.
This also causes people to spend lavishly on tax deductible items for their office or business. I can personally attest to this. I replace all computers, printers, cell phones, etc just as soon as the IRS will let me, and purchase the top of the line items. It isn't efficient. I could get buy with 8GB RAM in every computer instead of 16GB, but why? I would rather spend the money on the office than let the tax man have it. How stupid. If taxes weren't set up the way they were I would purchase the best value. With deductions set up the way they are I overspend on office furniture, rent, equipement etc because the higher are tax bracket the more incentive I have to maximize deductions. We stay at the best hotels, fly first-class, etc. because it is all tax deductible and high marginal tax rates provide no incentive at all for thrift or saving.
High taxes on investments keeps foreign money out of the country and raises the cost of domestic capital. It also drives investment money into collectibles and other non-productive investments.

All of these effects skew the growth curve and reduce potential growth. In the end they always produce less revenue than projected without fail.

In addition to clear historical evidence that cutting taxes can and has produced increased revenue there are also studies that show that cutting government spending does lead to economic expansion.

. In the four years from peak World War II spending in 1944 to 1948, the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75-percent reduction. It brought federal spending down from a peak of 44 percent of gross national product (GNP) in 1944 to only 8.9 percent in 1948, a drop of over 35 percentage points of GNP.

While government spending fell like a stone, federal tax revenues fell only a little, from a peak of $44.4 billion in 1945 to $39.7 billion in 1947 and $41.4 billion in 1948. In other words, from peak to trough, tax revenues fell by only $4.7 billion, or 10.6 percent. Yet, the economy boomed. The unemployment rate, which was artificially low at the end of the war because many millions of workers had been drafted into the U.S. armed services, did increase. But during the years from 1945 to 1948, it reached its peak at only 3.9 percent in 1946, and, for the months from September 1945 to December 1948, the average unemployment rate was only 3.5 percent.

Ask people who lived through that period as young adults what economic conditions were like, and you will inevitably get the answer that they experienced an economic boom. The U.S. economy during the post-World War II years is exhibit A against the Keynesian view that economies will necessarily suffer high unemployment and slow growth when governments make big cuts in government spending. Why did the U.S. economy do so well in the years following World War II given how badly it had done in the years preceding America’s entry into the war? The answer, in a nutshell, is that dramatically reducing government spending and deregulating an economy can take that economy from sickness to health. In short, one of the main things a government can do to help a weak economy recover is to step aside.

http://mercatus.org/publication/us-postwar-miracle

@dD_SchockTrooper: The Points needs to follow a number for it to be diplo points (I think):

Test:
1 point
1
1 Point
1
point Point points Points

millions and millions of taxpayers who are highly motivated to reduce their tax liabilities. And, as those taxpayers finagle and connive to find ways around the tax code, government responds by propagating new rules, new interpretations of the code, and new taxes in a never-ending chase. In the process, we create ever-more arcane tax codes that do a poor job of achieving any of their mandates.

Herman Cain's now famous "9-9-9" plan is his explicit proposal to right the wrongs of our federal tax code. He proposes a 9% flat-rate personal income tax with no deductions except for donations to charity; a 9% flat-rate tax on net business profits; and a new 9% national tax on retail sales.

Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan was designed to be what economists call "static revenue neutral," which means that if people didn't change what they do under his plan, total tax revenues would be the same as they are under our current tax code.

In reality Mr. Cain's plan will generate more tax revenue than the current system because it would completely eliminate the motivation to reduce tax liabilities and encourage investment into productive enterprise that would lead to immediate, broad economic growth.

Of course Big Government statists, socialists, and marxist believe that every dime a citizen makes belongs to them in the first place so they will keep attempting to lead America down the European road of high taxation and disastrous sovereign debt.

The Laffer Curve doesn't show that cutting taxes yields more revenue. It shows that a tax rate of 0% and a tax rate of 100% produce the same revenue (none). From that, it is derived that there must be an optimal, revenue maximizing, tax rate. Most studies show that the optimal rate is somewhere near a 70% tax rate {http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_L000015}. Additionally, a recent study showed that most industrialized countries are to the left of the curve (meaning that a decrease in tax rate will decrease revenue) {http://www.nber.org/papers/w15343}

So, it seems to me that Fasces is the one who doesn't know his Laffer curve.