Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.
|
The economy also "imploded under" Clinton (the Dot Com Bubble). It "imploded" even further "under" Obama. It has had this bad habit of "imploding under" many presidents, and even "recovering under" those same presidents. It didn't recover under FDR though it wavered up and down in its deep doldrums. It "imploded under" high taxes on the rich and under moderately high taxes on the rich and under low taxes on the rich. The taxes on the rich, high or low, don't seem to have had much of an effect on whether the economy "imploded" or not, but may have created short term little shifts, and high taxes on the rich may have given the unrich some envious satisfaction or some illusion that paying their illusive "fair share" was just the tweek to get the economy healthy. Never mind that taxes on the productive rich eventually always get shifted to the unrich in higher prices or lost jobs. High taxes on the rich has certainly been a campaign policy that helped win elections--even though the promise never pans out.
So you say that "maybe" there is something to the Reagan and Bush II post-tax cut recessions. What would that be? Is there a discussion there, or only mystifying conjecture?