[ksen]

As far as I've been able to find there is no empirical evidence that shows a statistically significant link between tax rates and GDP growth, positive or negative, and I've been looking.

And it is true that since supply-side became ascendant the fruits of additional GDP growth have become more and more concentrated in the upper income levels.

[dfwgator]

Since when was supply-side ever really in place? Sure, Reagan talked about it, but was it ever really implemented properly?

[DManA]

The Bush tax cuts were not a test of supply side economics. There were no tax cuts. All spending is paid for one way or another and Bush jacked up spending.

He was a Keynesian.

You fool, the country was screwed yet again by Keynesian manipulations and you blame it on Supply side.

Blind ignorant fool.

[discostu]

Supply side did fine for a while. But all economic methods have weaknesses and the longer you run under the theory the more pain those weaknesses stack up and drag the economy down. We should have bailed on supply side by the end of Bush 1’s term.

[Lee'sGhost]

“There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth.”

Nonsense.

[Fiji Hill]

As far as I've been able to find there is no empirical evidence that shows a statistically significant link between tax rates and GDP growth, positive or negative, and I've been looking.

Here are a couple of books that might help:

• The Way the World Works: How Economies Fail--and Succeed by Jude Wanniski (New York: Basic, 1978)

• Econoclasts: The Rebels Who Sparked the Supply Side Revolution and Restored America's Prosperity by Brian Domitrovic (Wilmington, Del.: ISI, 2008)

[Vinylly]

When you have the mainstream media blaming everything going bad in America on the Republicans and hidding and shielding every evil by O’bummer, what can you expect?
The Repubicans in Congress had just better nuckle down and do the right thing, no matter what, instead of trying to protect their cushy jobs. They’re going to get blamed what ever bad happens anyway. So, if there is no more Republicans, who then can they blame if the country goes to hell as it is doing right now? Maybe then the people in this country will start wising up and throw the bastards out, including their media. Then, it will time for a Revolution.

[koraz]

The evidence is clear from the government data. You can start by reading this.

“The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.”

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm#ixzz2E6MZRQKP

As for wealth concentration, can you show me the evidence where the middle and lower class is worse off than they were 50 years ago? Everyone of them have heated/air conditioned homes, cars, flat screen tvs, phones etc.?

[DesScorp]

Get thee to Daily Kos, troll.

[blueunicorn6]

I only had to read a couple of lines of this article. You waste your time reading the rest. Does Barack Obama like lots of money for himself? Does Hillary Clinton like lots of money for herself? Does Harry Reid like lots of money for himself? Does Nancy Pelosi like lots of money for herself? I have a grudging respect for Mao. At least he had to go on a long hike and cut some throats before he pulled the big con of tyranny masquerading as socialism on the Chinese. Our tyrants just go to law school and then become Democrats and then try to foist tyranny on us masquerading as socialists. They don’t even take a good hike, first.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Revisionist history, as far as I know. The Bush tax cuts generated decent economic growth, low unemployment, and improving government revenues during the period after they were fully enacted (2004-2006), and that was coming off the dot-com crash and 9/11. The Dem’s took over Congress in 2007, and that’s when things started heading in the other direction, greatly accelerated by the election of Obama and the Dem supermajority in 2008.

[ILS21R]

Lets start here first:

Internal Revenue Service data show that 3 percent of Senate staffers and more than 4 percent of House staffers owed taxes in 2010, adding up to about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes. More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/hundreds-capitol-hill-staffers-didnt-pay-taxes-in-2010/#ixzz2E6NXG8O8

[GeronL]

This is like blaming free markets for poverty when we haven’t had free markets since the Civil War

[Berlin_Freeper]

I’ll still take it over redistribution.

[koraz]

And here is another one for you,

“They didn’t cause the income gap to increase. Given all the talk about Bush’s massive tax cuts for the rich, you might also think that his tax cuts contributed to a widening of the income gap. Except that didn’t happen, either. According to the Census Bureau, the “gini index” of income inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in. (It’s actually risen each year under Obama.)”

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/112812-635034-5-secrets-about-the-bush-tax-cuts.htm#ixzz2E6QVxkXE

[reg45]

Even the Keynesian model was never truly implemented.

IIRC, it calls for stimulus spending during times of economic slowdowns and for frugality during times of prosperity. Somehow, they never seem to get around to implementing the second part.

[justa-hairyape]

You are defending a tax system that defines fairness as a certain class of people paying a higher percentage. That progressive ideology, as all progressive ideologies, is false.

[Mr. Jeeves]

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics.

It would also zero out spending on non-essential operations.

[Brett66]

So what’s your point? Do you wish for the government to have more revenue? Do you want the government to redistribute wealth to insure more “equity”?

[LS]

Odd, because in the 20s and 80s the overwhelming economic evidence is that the share of taxes paid by the rich (top 5%) go up astronomically. They double, while the share paid by the bottom two categories falls a great deal.

As for GDP, I suggest you look at Warren Brookes, "The Economy in Mind" for an assessment of the JFK tax cuts (which sparked significant growth). On the Reagan tax cuts, try "The Supply Side Revolution." Reagan's economy created 14 million (!!!!!~!) NET new jobs. Bush's smaller cuts created 6 million. Clinton, in between, still rode the Reagan cuts.

The historical evidence of the 20s, 60s, 80s, and 2000s is that whatever happens to the rich, cutting their taxes is the fastest route to increase the SHARE of taxes paid by the rich. That's why rich libs are ALWAYS in favor of increasing tax RATES, because they know the TAX REALITY and REVENUE will go down if rates go up.

As to GNP, GNP is based on a number of things, including high energy prices which dampens economic activity and overregulation. Since the 20s, we have been heavily overregulated, even in the Reagan years where there was some deregulation.

[mjp]

There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth.

Economic growth is increased by an increase in savings and investment, and investment increased in the Bush years, prior to the recession.

US Venture Capital Investment data by YCharts

Production also increased.

US Industrial Production Index data by YCharts

The flaw of supply side economics is that tax cuts must be accompanies by reductions in government spending. When government spending increases, this allows the value that was achieved by the tax cuts to be lost or wasted through the corresponding enlargement of federal budget deficits. Growing deficits are an assault on the economy because they have to be financed by creating money out of thin air and inflation, too much borrowing and growing national debt, and the need to raise taxes later.