Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (531333)	11/21/2009 12:19:18 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574752

You link the chart to taxes, but totally ignore the Bush Depression that was turned into the Bush severe recession, a much more causative factor.

To: i-node who wrote (531333)	11/22/2009 4:24:37 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574752

There you go again. If you increase taxes, what happens to economic growth? You kill it. Look what happened when Clinton increased taxes in 93. We were on a trajectory that should have seen strong growth, and it killed it, overnight. Look what happened with Bush 41 violated his "no new taxes" pledge. THE NEXT MONTH THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED (I remember it like it was yesterday). The very next month. This is absolute bullshit. Now I will refer you to facts, which you I'm sure you will completely ignore. Higher Taxes: Will The Republicans Cry Wolf Again? forbes.com In 1993, Bill Clinton proposed another major tax increase. Perhaps because it was initiated by a Democrat, conservatives were even more convinced that it would bring about economic disaster. In an Aug. 3, 1993, media fact sheet, John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis predicted the following results from the higher taxes: Capital formation would be reduced by $1.76 trillion through 1998, 1.34 million fewer jobs would be created and the real GDP growth rate would be 0.4% lower than it otherwise would have been. An examination of the data, however, shows that this forecast was totally wrong in every respect. The following table shows what happened after the 1993 tax increase was signed into law on Aug. 10. Year/Quarter Real GDP Growth 1993 III 2.10% 1993 IV 5.50% 1994 I 4.10% 1994 II 5.30% 1994 III 2.30% 1994 IV 4.80%

To: i-node who wrote (531333)	11/24/2009 12:25:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574752

But maximizing revenue HAPPENS to occur on the Laffer Curve at about the same time you maximize economic growth. Maybe in the very long run (as all the extra growth will eventually give you more revenue even with lower rates), but not typically in the short run. In the short run many tax increases will increase revenue even if they hurt growth, esp. if your not talking about taxing investment, or taxing ordinary income in such a way as to create particularly perverse distortions, or taxing ordinary income at particularly high rates. Yes the long run effect is more important in general terms, but in this context we probably need to consider the shorter run effect more, because tax policies aren't made for the long run, they tend to change every few years. If we could cut tax rates in half (while cutting out the worst 50 or more percent of spending, so we don't increase the deficit), and keep that policy in place, then 100 years from now we might have more government revenue (while also having a freer wealthier population), but we wouldn't have more government revenue next year or even next decade. Less extreme cuts, while having less potential ultimate benefit, might allow revenue to recover sooner but most cuts from our current level would not increase revenue in the short run (except possibly as a temporary demand side stimulus effect, but if we get such a benefit it would not be durable)