Economy

Rant

The False Concept of Tax Cuts

Posted 20 months ago|11 comments|723 views
Written by
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
There seems to be a rule of thumb among many Republicans lately that has caused me large amounts of confusion. Apparently, cutting taxes will increase government revenue when the economy improves due to the tax cuts. Republicans hold Ronald Regan up as a shining example of the success tax cuts have as economic stimulus. However, this simple explanation of success falls short of historical accuracy.

This belief of tax cuts to encourage economic growth is known as "supply side economics". The economic theory postulates an increase of government revenue at a lower tax percentage due to a growing economy. This theory is dependent on economic expansion resulting from new tax cuts yet if an economic contraction occurs, government deficits increase drastically. This risky maneuver has backfired every time since 1980 but the belief tax cuts help the economy stems from false concepts of what has caused economic recoveries in the past thirty years.

Ronald Regan implemented supply side economics during his first year in office by cutting $39 billion from the federal budget; created a 25% tax cut over three years, and faster write-offs for capital investments. The gamble was that such a huge tax cut would shock the economy from its stagnant state and the result would be a growing economy which would cover the cost of the government tax cuts. Instead of economic expansion the country fell into a recession and a mounting federal deficit forced Regan to increase budget cuts and increase taxes.

During the recession in 1982 the Federal Reserve Chairmen Paul Volker had worked to decrease the double digit inflation and lower the double digit interest rates that were crippling the economy. When Volker's many painful reforms started to lower inflation and interest rates the economy boomed while Regan was increasing taxes and cutting spending to handle the federal deficit. The economy flourished during Regan's Presidency but the federal debt was growing at a frightening pace. The promised increased government revenue was not materializing.

Republicans claimed that supply side economics had created the economic boom of the 1980's although lower inflation and lower interest rates were the real drivers of the economic expansion. This Republican propaganda spin allowed George H.W Bush to win the election in 1988, fortunately, Bush did not hold to the "Voodoo" economic policies of Regan.

President Bush felt that America could not grow and prosper with the growing federal debt. Bush pushed for more federal spending cuts but the Republican congress also wanted to cut taxes again which would have increased the deficit in 1989 to $500 billion. Instead of increasing the debt levels, Bush signed a Democratic bill that raised taxes to battle the deficit left by Regan. The Republican voters felt betrayed by Bush who had promised "no new taxes." Bush's political career was killed when he signed the bill. Although Bush's broken promise cost the Republican Party the election in 1992, the tax increases halted the budget deficit and helped Bill Clinton and the conservative congress to create a large federal surplus in the 1990's. The 1990's saw a long economic expansion with no tax cuts, instead, low interest rates and low inflation once again spurred economic growth.

This decade of prosperity came to an end when George W. Bush won the election in 1999 and returned the political agenda to supply side economics. In his first year Bush passed a slew of new tax cuts and championed many new financial reforms focused on easing the accounting standards of large corporations. At the same time he increased welfare programs with no balancing tax increase to cover the spending. The country entered the Tec and Telecom recession which reversed the federal surplus in two years. By 2005 the country was engaged in two military conflicts while more tax cuts took place.

During this period of increasing debt levels the US economy recovered from the 2001 recession but this success was not due to the many Bush tax cuts. The new fed chairman Alan Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low to stimulate economic recovery and this was mixed with Bush's increased mortgage spending through Fannie and Freddie Mac. The mixture led to an economic recovery which eventually caused the housing bubble burst in October of 2008. Faced with economic depression due to his tax cuts and increased mortgage borrowing, Bush passed the $700 billion TARP bill to rescue the nation's credit markets further increasing the national debt.
By looking at the historical timeline since 1980 it seems that cutting taxes did little to stimulate the economy and increased the federal debt levels astronomically. In addition, entitlement programs such as social security, welfare, and Medicare were expanded with no tax increases to balance the new entitlement spending. Every major tax cut since 1980 happened before or during an economic contraction. Each recovery was due to a combination of lower inflation or low interest rates and not from large tax cuts.

For me to say that lower tax rates are bad for the economy would be a false statement. Lower tax rates over long time periods encourage less government spending and increases a strong and vibrant economy. That said, large tax cuts in short periods of time while increasing spending has led the large debt America has created.

America has to decide if we will pay off our debt and cut spending or cut taxes in political retaliation to a liberal president which will place a tombstone over our fiscal grave. When will America put aside our political differences and realize we have a responsibility right now to pay for our borrowing? I guarantee if we cut taxes more our nation will be forced to default before end of the decade. The discussion should not be about taxes but about entitlement spending that is bankrupting this nation. I personally choose responsible taxes and spending cuts rather than a second great depression.

Some Sources:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/re...
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/re...
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vood...
http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
20 months ago: To understand the real world of taxes, first you need to know that the Federal or Nation debt, started when the politicians sold our nation to The International Bankers and to their agency called the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is NOT part of our government, but just one foreign agency, like the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank etc., all owned by the 12 families that own us.

It is NOT a debt that we owe, it is a corporate debt, of the Feds to the International bankers.

Each State gives 65% of its taxes to the Feds, to pay the Bankers.

The majority of all taxes goes over seas.

We are being bled dry, from a debt we did not ask for or voted for.

All states, city and federal governments are corporations. All courts are corporations.

All judges are administrative executives under the administrative procedures Act.

All Attorneys are un-licensed, and under the same act, are classed as foreign agents.

The truth of the treason and frauds created to pay back the bankers, is why Sovereigns are trying to restore America, to what we were supposed to be.

A free nation of freemen and women.

It may be hard to believe me now, but soon it will be exposed.

It is slowly happening. We will restore our nation and be free.

I tell it like it is, I pull no punches, tell no lies, and I am as I am

THE ONE AND ONLY RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-...

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_tre...

Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
20 months ago: You know whats great about humans, we suck about telling the lies and keeping secrets. Major century lasting cover ups are not possible. I know you wont listen.

Also, the Federal Reserve has helped this nation in several ways. Yes they make mistakes and I would like to see an audit and some transparency. Can you imagine congress printing money, it would be worse then during the civil war and southern states killed their own war by inflation.

Before you responded, blah blah, foreign counties and blah blah bankrupting. We created the debt and we pay for it.

look at how great Europe's evil plan is working for their economy.
20 months ago: Colorado.

I agree that we must cut spending along with cutting taxes. Absolutely. To me that goes without saying.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
20 months ago: I think lots of people have tried but crossing entitlement has never worked for any politician. I hope someone can.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
20 months ago: Great Post Colorado! There are only two areas that can be cut that will have any effect, the Military and Health. We can cut the military by ending both wars and closing many of the hundreds of bases we have over seas. We also need to stop building cold war weapons systems that we don't need in the current anti terrorist world. Congress has to stop forcing the military to buy systems it doesn't need and hasn't asked for like the second f-136 engine. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-...
Obama tried to cut 5% wasteful Medicare spending and was crucified by the Republicans. Still there are many ways to cut spending if we have the will.

Obama is stimulating the country with tax cuts to the lower and middle classes and to small business if they hire. That is working, but needs to be offset by increased taxes on the rich, on financial speculation, and on carbon.

Taxes on the rich will reduce income inequality which is worse than it has been in a hundred years. Taxes on financial speculation like derivatives will not harm and may help the economy because that speculation is totally non productive and harmful to the economy, and taxes on carbon should reflect the true environmental costs of things like global warming and the oil spills. Part of that revenue could be paid to the public to offset higher fuel costs. The other part should be used to plant trees and develop renewable alternatives, which will stimulate green jobs. We need to be able to compete with China and the other countries that are moving into green technology at warp speed, or we will be dependent on them for the next generation of energy.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
20 months ago: Thanks.

I agree with military and health but we also have to adresess social security. I dont want people to get left with no support but it is time that this country moves away from big pooled entitlement programs. It would be a hard process but has to happen.

I am also careful on taxing the rich because their rich. I do believe that many get off easy but rich people already pay a lot of money. Also, in the forms of liberty, what gives us the right to punish a certain group through tax?

I hold more to a percentage tax and get ride of the complicated system we have at the federal level. If you make more money then you pay the same percentage you always paid. That also goes to the middle class and for anyone that is below $20,000 they dont pay anything. A simplified version of the tax system would also make the federal budget much easier to control and transparent.

those are just some thoughts, thanks for your comment, I like the discussions we have.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
20 months ago: The only way that I would consider the Unfair Tax or a Flat tax fair, is if there was wage control. There used to be some sort of relationship between how much you earned and the importance or difficulty of your job.

You can make a logical argument that a field worker should get half as much as his supervisor, who makes half as much as the farmer who owns the land and plants the food. You can argue that a candy striper should make half as much as a nurse who makes half as much as a doctor because the doctor needs to go to school twice as long and has more responsibility.

How can you make a logical argument that a hedge fund manager can make 2500 times as much as a fireman or a cop? You can't! It isn't logical! It could be argued that the fireman or cop should make several times more than the hedge fund manager because one protects and serves the community while the other actually harms the community.

The entire free market system is dependent on the concept of fairness of compensation. If there is a fair relationship then the Ayn Rand brand of resistance against taxing wages makes sense because if you tax how hard you work then you discourage working hard.

There is no relationship between how much money the hedge fund manager gets and the benefits to the community. It is entirely unfair, so the only way to restore fairness to the system, is through progressive taxation.

The hedge fund managers do nothing good for society. They do not contribute to society with jobs or businesses or products or food. All they create is money for themselves and instability to the economy. Taxing these guys at 90% would not harm society in the least.

Some activities like tobacco use, and alcohol use, actually harms society because it results in additional health care that society has to pay for. People understand this concept and so they accept "Sin Taxes".

The same should be true for pollution. Pollution should be taxed because society has to pay additional health care. Carbon use should also be taxed because it causes global warming.

A small (0.1 % - 0.2 %) transaction tax on hedge funds, derivatives, short sales, and all of the other harmful financial inventions, should be considered just another "Sin Tax", since they do no good and actually do harm.

Someone is going to have to pay off the National Debt. I would prefer that the taxes be fair and target those that can afford to pay.

20 months ago: Who gets burned the most if...

Someone dies? The Doctor or the Candy Striper?
The Crops fail? The Farmer or the field worker?

Nice to know you equate all jobs with the same amount of risk.

Fair enough. Make a law that hold the Candy Striper accounable for the same percentage of pay as the Doctor. Lets level the playing field.

Oh, no. That would be unfair because the Candy Striper make so much less and the Doctor can afford it. Thinking like that is why this country is losing doctors at a record pace. Along with Farmers.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
20 months ago: If there is a detriment resulting from the job of hedge fund manager, then let's put Soros out of a job. I think that if you are going to cap wages, let's start with entertainers. They produce absolutely nothing tangible, and are, for the most part, harmful to the country.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
20 months ago: TCG I don't know what you are talking about. I Did acknowledge that the farmer and the doctor should get paid considerably more because they do carry more responsibility.

I am not talking about putting anyone out of work. Society should applaud these guys for making so much money if they pay their fair share. The problem is most don't.

I am just advocating that if you make boatloads of money, like Soros, some entertainers, Some Pro Sports folk, that is completely out of proportion to the benefits to society, then you have the choice of donating a whole lot of that money to charities or activities that do good things for the community or you should be taxed at a high rate so the government can do good things for the community.

In addition to hedge fund managers that make their money in harmful ways there are a lot of people that make their money in illegal ways. How many people get rich smuggling drugs? How about those that launder money for the drug dealers? How about those that sell weapons to terrorists?

Our society doesn't care how you make your money. If you are rich you become a hero to be worshiped. We extend that hero worship to allowing them to not pay their fair share.

Historically the top tax rate has been 90% during times of war like now, and 70% during peace. Profits from Hedge Funds are only taxed at 15%! That is insane!

If a hedge fund manager makes a billion dollars and is taxed 90% they are not going to be destitute because of the taxes, they will still have $100 million to get by on!

No One can possibly spend that amount of money on themselves. They mostly put it in off shore tax shelters or buy a fourth estate in France. Taxing that would put that money back into circulation, and if they paid their fair share the tax burden could be shifted so the middle class does not pay so much.

20 months ago: Oh. Your attacking the Bernanke, Geithner and the Obama wall street crowd.

Why not just add yourself to the most wanted list by coming right out and saying they are theives and should get serious time in a 10 by 10 cement cage?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.