Okay. So, we cut taxes -- as we've done under JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Under JFK you have a point. Top bracket was 90%. That was too high.
Under Reagan, he cut taxes and then raised them back a little. However, two factors were keeping the economy back. High oil prices and high interest rates. Interest rates were cut and OPEC fell apart. Neither had to do with cutting taxes..The deficit spending he ran during those years was also stimulative.
Under Clinton, he raised taxes on the upper end and lowered taxes for the middle class and poor. However, by that time, the economy was already recovering from the bellyflop under Bush I
Under Bush II, there was an economic slowdown due to the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11. It just isn't possible to claim that the economy would not recover from those things for your thesis to work. If nothing else, the massive increase in the deficits and the debt were very stimulative.The bulk of the money from his tax cuts went to people who don't spend a large fraction of their income on consumer goods. With 70% or more of our economy depending on consumer spending, it should be obvious to everyone but the blindly partisan that if you want economic growth, you make sure that the ones who get it are most likely to spend it in the economy. Unless, of course, you have insufficient investment. A stock market of 10,000+ is not a sign of insufficient investment. |
