[wideawake]

This is so incoherent I have to laugh.

[Admin Moderator]

Busy morning, eh?

[Alberta's Child]

The robust economy of the late 1990s was largely the result of the capital gains tax cut that was passed in 1995. Most people who pay capital gains taxes are rich by any standard.

The taxes that most affect the "poor" are payroll taxes, which haven't changed in years.

Nice try, though.

[unixfox]

Instead of asking the question,

"Do you think we need a tax cut?"

They should try asking the question

"Would you like a raise?"

Of course that won't ever happen because most people wouldn't understand the concept.

[discostu]

Tax cuts might not help the economy, the economy can be too hosed for it. But tax cuts NEVER hurt the economy. The government can always deficit spend... well it could until that moronic balanced budget crap got written, floating t-bills to pay for t-bills floated 20 years ago was a fine tradition. And in the end it's OUR money and the government has no natural right to it, no member of the federal government was involved in writing my resume coming to the interview or doing the work of my job, the money doesn't belong to the government.

[Falcon4.0]

Just the basic definition of the word "Economy" blows this guy's argument out of the water. An economy is the "PEOPLE" buying saving and producing NOT the Government.

I guess these people want to return to the Carter era with taxes. Now there was a booming economy. They always like to say that Bush wants to return to the era of Regan and deficit spending, well I think we should accuse the democrats of wanting to return to the Carter era of double digit inflation. How can they claim High taxes keeps interest rates low, they had 78% top rate all through Carter and an economy IN THE TOILET!

[big gray tabby]

First he says tax cuts are a bad idea, that they hurt people. Then he says that they should be given to poor people. Which is it?

Then he says rich people don't pay taxes. Obviously he doesn't pay under the AMT, or else he's just plain lying. Because if he did, he'd know depreciation allowances and oil depletion allowances are great but you still get nailed under the AMT.

Then he rails on AMD without making the distinction between corporate taxes and personal income taxes. No one's talking about cutting corporate taxes so AMD is irrelevant.

All in all a pitiful, ideologically demented rant.

[PA Engineer]

I think I just found the opposite of a broken glass Republican. A Lockbox Liberal!

[fatrat]

It is virtually always the case (especially with this President) that a tax cut returns money to high income people disproportionate to the middle or lower income taxpayer.

this is in the 6th paragraph, does anybody need to read any further?

[cork]

Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard

[keithtoo]

What an idiot - he belongs in Oregon.

First of all, he bemoans 'giving' tax cuts to the rich. If its their money - and it is - who else deserves to get it? If I go to a store and get overcharged, do they refuse to give me a refund if I make too much money? Do they then give my refund to someone else because they are poor? Of course not, they give it to me because I was paying too much.

You dont 'give' something to someone if its already theirs.

This is ignoring another reason for tax cuts which is just as legitimate, and that is to hold down the growth of government.

[tcostell]

Consumer behavior data consistently show that low and moderate income people tend to spend money on goods and services that are more likely to result directly in jobs and incomes in the community (that is, to continue multiplying on a secondary or tertiary basis).

The exact opposite is true. (like so much in this article) And notice the author does not site the report to which he refers.

Besides, economic activity is not driven by consumption, but by production, and that requires capital, the cost of which reflects the kind of risks taken and growth fostered.

Honestly, this is just a low rent version of Paul Krugman. All ideology, and no substance. The author should be ashamed.

[Still Thinking]

Of course, trickle-down economics rests on the now widely discredited assumption that wealthier people immediately invest this extra money productively, causing growth in the economy and putting everyone to work. (Good grief, George, even Ronald Reagan gave that one up!) This is equivalent to providing for the welfare of birds by overfeeding the horses, and then encouraging the birds to forage over what?s left in the corral.

I have work boots with a better understanding of economics than this guy. If the tax cut = economic growth principle were based on expectations of what the beneficiaries would do with the extra money, he would be almost right, there would be little benefit.

But that's not the point at all; lower tax rates make activities which produce income but require the sacrifice of something (time or capital) more attractive. More income producing activity, more income, more tax revenue. It works. Also, why does he start by saying he'll be using facts and numbers, then bore us with economic theory and "common sense", when historical precedent unequivocally disproves his contention? When Jack Kennedy reduced tax rates, revenue increased; when Ronald Reagan reduced rates, revenue increased. This guy is out in left field, but trying to sound like the experienced voice of reason. What a Clymer.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Henry Hazlitt proved that Keynesian economics was nothing more than a tissue of lies and fallacies in his book:

The Failure of the New Economics

Another book that liberals have never heard of.

[USMA '71]

This is a joke -- RIGHT??? If not, you are so far off-base here that remedial economics training is a necessity before future posting on this subject. Remember the old adage: "There are some who remain silent and are THOUGHT to be ignorant - and there are some who speak and take away all doubt." Guess where I think you fit.

Do you honestly believe "saving" and "investing" take money out of circulation? What a rediculous premise.

Perhaps you should comment on some other topic where you might be better prepared.

[Chances Are]

This, uh, attempt at economic analysis has me completely flummoxed. Is this guy trying to pull a Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson) for the Left? If so, he fails on any number of accounts.

To cut right to the chase, the heart of his argument is the old liberal bromide of "Only the Government can spend your money properly". Of course, when it came to offering logic and empirical data on past government spending, he gave us no insight on that!

This is the old shop-worn plaint of the rich being the bad guys - always. Riiiiiight. Government grows your food for you, markets and sells everything under the sun, provides plant and capacity, stimulates growth by telling us what to do with our money after the barest of essentials have been provided to the household, and is finally beginning to come around to the concept of telling us how to think.

I for one am glad this guy has taken the time out of (what I am sure is) his busy schedule to enlighten the rest of us plebes. It has taken us over 225 years, but we've finally come to the appropriate conclusion that our nation was founded on the wrong principles!

Whew! Whoda thunk?

Pardon me now while I go off to barf in the bushes...

What a dork....

CA....

[3AngelaD]

He forgot to mention that the popularizer and promoter of this theme was none other than President Kennedy, the liberals' idol.

[kevao]

a tax cut returns money to high income people disproportionate to the middle or lower income taxpayer

Gee, maybe this is why:

Group's Share of Total Taxes (Source: IRS)

Top 1% (above $293,415) = 36.2%

Top 5% (above $120,846)= 55.5%

Top 10% (above $87,687) = 66.5%

Top 25% (above $52,965) = 83.5%

Top 50% (above $26,415) = 96%

Bottom 50% (below $26,415) = 4%

How many of you out there are realizing for the first time that you are "rich"?

[freeforall]

please sir may i keep a dollar I earned?

[TBP]

Let's take on this idiot's central point.

When you receive a tax cut, you keep more of your own money and you have more money to use. Now, there are only three things you can do with it: spend it, save it, or invest it.

If you spend it, as this guy notes, it moves right back into the economy. If you save it, there is more money for banks and others to lend, which means more houses, cars, and other goods get bought. That's good for the economy. Now, if you invest it, companies have more money to expand and when they expand, they hve to hire more people. So whichever of the three things you do with your money will help the economy, just in different ways.