They would have worked a lot better coupled with massive spending cuts and regulation rollbacks.
After-tax incomes, which is more important, were greater because of the tax cuts.
Government has a very specific set of tasks that it's authorized to do. If the federal government wasn't so massively in violation of the constitution there wouldn't be a need to bleed every citizen of every last drop possible.
This is a lacking and frankly bizarre analysis. Tax rates are but one of many factors that impact total income produced across the economy. Using one year 2000 as a base for evaluating the entire decade following is bizarre, especially considering that year saw the beginning of a down turn, dot com bubble layoffs. Looks to me like an author that worked hard to manipulate the facts to back a predetermined conclusion.
This is a false analysis. Our economy was entering a recession as the dot com bubble burst. We were also hit with the worst foreign attack on our soil ever. So the question is not what was the economy like, but what would it have been like WITHOUT the tax cuts.
They are unrelated.
Given the NASDAQ meltdown and the resulting stock market performance, capital gains tax receipts were much lower during the decade. It has very little to do with the lowering of tax rates.
Clinton’s deficit into surplus had everything to do with the markets dot com blowoff, and very little to do with raising tax rates.
Why does this guy ignore the effect of 9/11 and the 2 trillion dollar hit to the US economy?
There’s number-crunching and then there’s number-scrambling. This would seem to be the latter, even to an economic dunce such as I.
...another distinguished graduate of The Paul Krugman Nobel Peace Prize School of Economics...
Sack-o-crap analysis from sack-o-crap lefty...
It's ALWAYS the tax cuts and NEVER the outrageous and inefficient spending that's the problem. Always.
SO let me guess, Mr. Johnson here is suggesting that the Bush tax cuts not be extended and that America undergo the largest tax increase in US history? Couple that with the un-announced tax increases, such as VAT tax, etc., that these type idiots will slam us with......wonderful you live in Mr. Johnson, huh? =.=
So this “analysis” is total garbage where by a pre determined outcome was given a gloss of intellectual creditably by selectively manipulating the data.
Or, in other garbage in garbage out
The first 18 months of the 2003 Bush tax cuts yielded 300,000 jobs created, the next 20 months 5 million jobs created according to the heritage foundation analysis. The govt should live on less and the tax payers live on more!
Looks like this moron is auditioning for an 0bama economic position. So it follow that by this logic, we can expect proportionately more tax revenues at 70, 80 or 90 percent marginal rates. We also can expect more income and GDP with higher taxes? Marxist economists will never answer the question at which rate will revenue go down. Also, what good does it do to boast about a higher income if most of it goes for taxes, it’s only after tax income that matters to the individual.
This moron thinks that his data (which I believe will be shown to be manipulated because it is natural for a Marxist to deceive) is obviously sufficient to prove his insane thesis that higher income taxes actually increase individual income. There are other factors to be considered such as breakthrough economic innovation (internet, computers), wars (9/11), economic cycles (government sponsored housing bubble) occurring during a time period studied that have profound influences on individual incomes.
In order to prove this proposition, one needs not only raw economic empiric data (which can be manipulated by varying the starting points) but an account of outsides variables that affect the economy. Then, the proposition must also be subject to the fundamental logic that people act in their self interest in nearly all cases. Even Leftists do all they can to avoid paying taxes. At a certain point, a rational person will stop working when he cannot keep his money. This is as basic as the Pavlov dog experiments when behavior is extinguished after a reward is no longer given after the performance of a desired activity.
Even a dog knows more about economics than this Marxist. Perhaps zero can hire his dog Bo as and economic advisor. At least he would be more qualified.
The dumbass that wrote that has no idea what the economy would be without the tax cuts! That is like the lying Marxist saying ‘jobs saved or created’.