Thread: Raising taxes

As we all know, Obama wants to raise our taxes. My question, that seems to never be answered by liberals, is how does raising taxes HELP the economy?

This link is old, but it has facts that show that raising taxes hurts the economy.

The Real Reagan Economic Record

Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy's performance for the three periods of analysis--1974-81, 1981-89, and 1989-95--for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period through the end and present the annualized change. [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declined in the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in the pre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years. [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

• Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.
  
• Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.
  
• Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.
  
• Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]
• Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.
  
• Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.
  
• Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.
  
• Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.
  
• Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.
  
• Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

Again, how exactly does raising taxes help our economy?

opcorn:...

All taxes are theft, harm the economy, and should be abolished. The socialist schemes of Obongo are designed to impoverish Americans and make them more dependent on government.

Originally Posted by Conservative15

As we all know, Obama wants to raise our taxes. My question, that seems to never be answered by liberals, is how does raising taxes HELP the economy?

This link is old, but it has facts that show that raising taxes hurts the economy.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

Again, how exactly does raising taxes help our economy?

The detriments only apply if the tax increase is on the Middle Class. Raising it on the wealthy decreases the tax burden on the Middle Class, hence their liquidity is increased which benefits the economy.

Anyone who thinks we can pay down the debt without raising taxes are being foolish. Reagan's economic gains were negated by the debt to GDP ratio. We still have not payed for that spending.

Originally Posted by Conservative15

As we all know, Obama wants to raise our taxes. My question, that seems to never be answered by liberals, is how does raising taxes HELP the economy?

This link is old, but it has facts that show that raising taxes hurts the economy.




Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

Again, how exactly does raising taxes help our economy?

I am no liberal but I would be happy to clue you in. We have a ten billion dollar debt but that comes with a sixty trillion dollar obligation, thats if we stop spending a few weeks ago. Our debt has hurt the world and made us a laughing stock. The bailout will and is costing trillions. This joke of a government will kill food stamps for the needy yet increase spending on corporate welfare, the military, and defense budget by hundreds of billions a year. Add the trillions that are being pumped into the market, different than the bailout, and it does not take a real smart person to figure that taxes will not only need to be raised but will be. Hey I did not even mention the freaking wars!!

Originally Posted by anonnymous

Anyone who thinks we can pay down the debt without raising taxes are being foolish. Reagan's economic gains were negated by the debt to GDP ratio. We still have not payed for that spending.

Of course we can pay down the debt without raising taxes. Even astronomical tax hikes to the point of revolt would not put a dent in the debt without drastically reducing spending.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

The detriments only apply if the tax increase is on the Middle Class. Raising it on the wealthy decreases the tax burden on the Middle Class, hence their liquidity is increased which benefits the economy.

Raising taxes on the wealthy will also decrease jobs. The Reagan years are a perfect example of what happens when you cut taxes.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

Anyone who thinks we can pay down the debt without raising taxes are being foolish. Reagan's economic gains were negated by the debt to GDP ratio. We still have not payed for that spending.

We need to cut spending. Keep taxes low and spending low and over time the debt will go away.

Originally Posted by Conservative15

Raising taxes on the wealthy will also decrease jobs. The Reagan years are a perfect example of what happens when you cut taxes.

What, a huge ass national debt and involvement in a highly questionable international situation? :laughing: Reagan was a total idiot, thank god the bastard died. Raising taxes on the wealthy does not decrease jobs.