Skarp endorses...

[jonriv]

Tax cuts for the sake of cuts are not the answer.

There is a difference between growing tax revenue and growing the economy. Jefferson understood this but few today get it.

If you want to make "founding Fathers" references to the economy- Jefferson is NOT your man(he died in severe debt) Hamilton is the one to use- he got a fledgling, young third world nation out of debt within a few years(as well as all of the states debt) invented what became the modern corporation, help start the NY Stock Exchange, also develop Treasury Instruments(Bills & notes) He was a genius(unfortunately he was more than happy to let others know he was and how dumb they were) Also founded the Bank of NY and the NY Post. Jefferson was the dreamer-hamilton the pragmatist-the Ying and Yang of the young nation- thank God we had both!

[ontheblack]

the Ying and Yang of the young nation- thank God we had both!

I will grant you that.

Hamilton favored a consumption tax:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them

Jefferson favored a progressive tax system:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

and

I hope that we crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

The problem we have today is that the tax code is beyond fixing. It has to be thought out anew. Lower tax rates generate more revenue while higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth. Talk about yin and yang.

[jonriv]

the Ying and Yang of the young nation- thank God we had both!

I will grant you that.

Hamilton favored a consumption tax:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them

Jefferson favored a progressive tax system:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

and

I hope that we crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

The problem we have today is that the tax code is beyond fixing. It has to be thought out anew. Lower tax rates generate more revenue while higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth. Talk about yin and yang.

Ironically- it was Jefferson who was the landed aristocrat and Hamilton who was the self-made man who pulled himself out of poverty- Perhaps explains Jefferson's more philisophical view and Hamilton's more practical view. The one thing all politicians can lear from them(they loathed each other) that even they came to some practical agreements and common ground(ie Washington DC)

[Skarp]

...higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth.

I'd love to see the support for this statement. Not only is it incorrect, it is necessarily incorrect.

[ontheblack]

...higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth.

I'd love to see the support for this statement. Not only is it incorrect, it is necessarily incorrect.

No, it is not incorrect.

Using GDP as the index, from 1947-1981 with top marginal tax rates ranging from 70%-94%, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.64%. The come the Reagan tax cuts. From 1982-2010, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 2.95%. If you factor in the change in how the CPI was calculated from 1999 on, that number is even lower - by half of one percent.

[anonlooker]

Jefferson's personal finances dont invalidate his economic theories any more than Buffet's personal finances validate his ideas on taxation.

No need to even post a reply to the trolls idiotic comments, he's just trying to bait you.

[Skarp]

...higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth.

I'd love to see the support for this statement. Not only is it incorrect, it is necessarily incorrect.

No, it is not incorrect.

Using GDP as the index, from 1947-1981 with top marginal tax rates ranging from 70%-94%, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.64%. The come the Reagan tax cuts. From 1982-2010, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 2.95%. If you factor in the change in how the CPI was calculated from 1999 on, that number is even lower - by half of one percent.

Nice trick. Include the period encompassing the post-war boom (in which the entire industrialized world was reconstructed on the back of the U.S. economy) in with the data supposedly supporting your "higher taxes = more economic growth" contention, and then include the current global crash (which occurred 20 years after Reagan left office) to support the contention that Reagan's tax cuts did not stimulate the economy. Do I need to define "disingenuous" at this point? Lop off those improperly included bookends and you'll be looking at different picture entirely.

Reagan's tax cuts led to the longest period of peace-time prosperity and growth in the country's history, including average annual growth of 4.1% and 19.9 million jobs created from 1983-1990, and average annual growth of 3.3% and 16.4 million jobs created from 1991-1999. http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... mic-record
Reagan quite literally rescued the country from the awful economic conditions and public malaise caused by decades of massively expanding government, unconscionably high taxes, and over-regulation--and he did so over the "kicking-and-screaming" protests of the big government left, which has never even heard of a tax it doesn't support.

Like I said, not only are you incorrect, you are necessarily incorrect. A certain level of infrastructure and oversight is necessary to create the conditions sufficient for economic growth, and for those things taxes are needed. Beyond that, raising taxes, like increasing any other business cost, negatively impacts anticipated investment returns. In other words, increasing taxes directly disincentivizes risk-taking. As you increase costs, solid bets become marginal bets. Marginal bets become bad bets. And people who care about their money don't make bad bets.

This isn't hypothetical. I don't have to include a slew of irrelevant variables or search for just the right grouping of years in order to "prove" this. It is literally axiomatic.

Now, what's next? Does 2+2 not really equal 4?

[GIMNEPIWO]

So, if we dig up Reagan ( which I would fully support ) ... How long would it take for him to turn this pile of sh*t around ?

[ontheblack]

...higher tax rates at the upper end have historically resulted in greater economic growth.

I'd love to see the support for this statement. Not only is it incorrect, it is necessarily incorrect.

No, it is not incorrect.

Using GDP as the index, from 1947-1981 with top marginal tax rates ranging from 70%-94%, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.64%. The come the Reagan tax cuts. From 1982-2010, the US economy grew at an average annual rate of 2.95%. If you factor in the change in how the CPI was calculated from 1999 on, that number is even lower - by half of one percent.

Nice trick. Include the period encompassing the post-war boom (in which the entire industrialized world was reconstructed on the back of the U.S. economy) in with the data supposedly supporting your "higher taxes = more economic growth" contention, and then include the current global crash (which occurred 20 years after Reagan left office) to support the contention that Reagan's tax cuts did not stimulate the economy. Do I need to define "disingenuous" at this point? Lop off those improperly included bookends and you'll be looking at different picture entirely.

Reagan's tax cuts led to the longest period of peace-time prosperity and growth in the country's history, including average annual growth of 4.1% and 19.9 million jobs created from 1983-1990, and average annual growth of 3.3% and 16.4 million jobs created from 1991-1999. http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... mic-record
Reagan quite literally rescued the country from the awful economic conditions and public malaise caused by decades of massively expanding government, unconscionably high taxes, and over-regulation--and he did so over the "kicking-and-screaming" protests of the big government left, which has never even heard of a tax it doesn't support.

Like I said, not only are you incorrect, you are necessarily incorrect. A certain level of infrastructure and oversight is necessary to create the conditions sufficient for economic growth, and for those things taxes are needed. Beyond that, raising taxes, like increasing any other business cost, negatively impacts anticipated investment returns. In other words, increasing taxes directly disincentivizes risk-taking. As you increase costs, solid bets become marginal bets. Marginal bets become bad bets. And people who care about their money don't make bad bets.

This isn't hypothetical. I don't have to include a slew of irrelevant variables or search for just the right grouping of years in order to "prove" this. It is literally axiomatic.

Now, what's next? Does 2+2 not really equal 4?

I never said the Reagan tax cuts didnt do exactly what you spelled out.

As for the time frames, I took post war US and looked at the period of time leading up to the reduction of the top marginal tax rate from 70%+ to less than 50% and compared to the period of time where marginal tax rates have been lower than 50%. There was no trick - the comparison is solely with regard to top marginal rates. You cant compare anything else.

[Skarp]

I never said the Reagan tax cuts didnt do exactly what you spelled out.

Not to pick nits, but that is precisely what you said.

In any event, as I pointed out, the comparison you offered fails to control for at least two monumentally important causal variables. When that is done, a much different picture emerges. Your original claim--that higher marginal taxes at the upper levels "result" in greater economic growth--is simply wrong.

No biggie...I was wrong once too. My kindergarten teacher had to be resuscitated...