Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted November 11, 2008.


That tax cuts stimulate the economy is taken as a matter of faith, but the brute facts suggest otherwise.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Larry Beinhart

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

    The Myth

    Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?

    Yes. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money. Therefore, they have more to invest and spend into the economy, and they have more money to start business and create jobs, therefore also helping to stimulate the economy. -- Yahoo Answers

    I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference. -- George W. Bush

    The Realities

    The brute facts are these:

    • Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash.
    • High income taxes correlate with economic growth.
    • Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.
    • Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.
    • All of this is especially true as applied to the top tax rates, the amount paid on income that exceeds the highest bracket.

    The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash

    1. Hoover

    During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high.

    In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent.

    The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.

    It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.

    There were bank failures and the Great Depression.

    2. Reagan

    From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range.

    Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent.

    The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."

    His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. It would stimulate the economy!

    There was a boom. But it was a bubble.

    Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.

    Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate.

    Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout.

    3. Bush II

    George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history.

    He immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.

    Eventually, the economy began to grow.

    Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector -- and only the sector -- grew.

    Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was … a bubble.

    There was a crash.

    Bank failures. A bailout.

    The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.

    High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth

    The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are:

    • World War II (1941-45): top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent
    • Post-war under Truman and Eisenhower: top rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent
    • Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent
    • First two Roosevelt administrations (1933-40). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

    A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war.

    Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: tax cuts, myths, economic growth

Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Isn't Obama offering tax cuts?
Posted by: -matti on Nov 11, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article seems to point to the futility of this.

But will the true believers see the Light?

I'm sorry, but to me this is like watching the horror of '92-'93 play out all over again in some weird "remake" form.

Wake up People!

The Dems now have the power to alter EVERYTHING for the better!

Believe NO excuses!

november5.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not in this context. Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» MATTI IS SPAMING AGAIN Posted by: Live Gently
» RE: No Spam here Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Beck you're a broken record. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Beinhart is Dead On But We Need Tax Reform Also ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 11, 2008 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because no matter how high the taxes are raised those that can, can and will use all the loopholes they can. We need tax reform to close those loopholes.

Read David Cay Johnston ...

David Cay Johnston (born 1948) is an investigative journalist and author. Until April 2008, he was a senior reporter with The New York Times but now works as an independent author and reporter. He is the author of best-selling books on tax and economic policy, the most recently published of which is Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With The Bill, about hidden subsidies, rigged markets, and corporate socialism. It follows his earlier book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else, a New York Times bestseller.

Free Lunch on You Tube

More than 2.5 billion dollars a year are spent in Washington DC on lobbying for special "treatment".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Europe has high taxes and it's just making it
Posted by: masthead on Nov 11, 2008 2:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Europe had low taxes, it'd be in big trouble about now. Our U.S. economy needs huge infusions in cash toward its infrastructure and social programs. Oops, don't want to say "social" because most American hate them thar socialists because, well, they is just plain evil and communist ya know. Damn how stupid can us Americans get.

America needs to let the financial institutions swim or sink on their own. No welfare for them. They certainly don't give welfare for the sick and dying in America so why them?

Big pharma's medicine prices need to be controlled by the government.

Etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Europe Has High Taxes Posted by: Liberty G
» This is BS! Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» Like to document this? Posted by: ReallyBearish
Importance of Marginal Propensity to Consume
Posted by: ehensleyky on Nov 11, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The prosperous middle class, with adequate income to spend and inclination to spend it (marginal propsnsity to consume) is the engine that drives the economy. Giving more disposable income to the group that spends it works. Giving more money to the wealthy does nothing for the economy. It all depends on who the tax cuts go to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow!
Posted by: Nodarse on Nov 11, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax cuts cause depressions.

How did we survive for 126 years without an income tax?

Answer: Our money was actually backed by something of value i.e. Gold or Silver.

Today, money is created by the Federal Reserve typing a very large number on computer screen and calling that money.

Without 'real" capital there can be no "capitalism."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wow! Posted by: peppylapew
You have to pay to play!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 11, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appears this is an over simplification. First there are many other factors that play into this. For example - the impact of the enormous inflation and all time high interest rates during Carters time, an impact Reagan surely had to deal with in his tax plans.

Impacts of tax cuts cannot be taken in a vacume

A main factor regarding tax cuts impact is the balance between tax cuts and cuts in spending. If government continues to grow, as it did under Bush, and tax cuts do not generate the additional revenue it often does through economic stimulation, then the net government deficit over time would impact economic growth - a reverse effect it would seem.

Cut taxes AND cut spending would have a positive effect - I doubt this administration will come anywhere near controlling spending so we will have to pay so they can play.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You have to pay to play! Posted by: beinhart
» RE: You have to pay to play! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: You have to pay to play! Posted by: stephenmeinster
RE: Nice
Posted by: DanYHKim on Nov 17, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I half-agree with you.

While a lot of money seems to be going to handouts for big corporations (and, for that matter, otherwise-unprofitable agribusiness and defense contractors), a lot of it still pays for domestic humanitarian care and infrastructure. It also pays for important institutions that allow us to conduct business.

How would anyone do business, for example, if binding contracts could not be enforced? Risky agreements can only be made because there is a huge edifice of law, courts, agencies and prisons to back them up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Preacher Larry, Meet Choir...
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Nov 11, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Market Fundamentalism is a faith unsupported by the facts. By their track record, can we really call Economics a science? How many economists out there predicted this current market melt-down? I think you can count them on both hands.

Why do we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by these charlatans? And why is Obama still trolling these same stagnant waters for his economic advisers? The pontiffs of high finance and their prostitute/politician marrionettes are telling us, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

If you expect change, don't assume your vote for Obama did the trick. It's going to take constant pressure from the grass roots. Washington left to it's own devices soon resorts back to the same old ways of Washington, regardless of who is currently in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax cuts grow the privatized service sector, as intended
Posted by: scheherezade on Nov 11, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax cuts appear to be successfully creating growth in the one sector they're ultimately designed to: privatized services.

Just ask any local government, today, how they're doing on funding basic services. Bush tax cuts have done exactly what they're supposed to -- they've placed local utilities, schools and roadwork into uncertain funding waters and sparked ever-more regressive measures, like sales taxes, to stop the gaps.

It's time to turn these inefficient bureaucracies over to for-profit corporations "who will run them like a business," the gullible public is being told by just about every mainstream media outlet in the country.

Add the prospect of a tiny property/income/gas tax cut on top, and watch the hoi polloi embrace the prospect of modern-day Enclosure Laws cutting off their own commons assets.

After all, free markets existed very happily under feudalism before (once kings, lords, sheriffs, etc. took their cut) with no need for progressive taxes. In fact, serfs were taxed proportionally more than their social betters & were quite happy (according to Disney) to reap such tinkle-down benefits as lifetime employment and free food (for those willing to work hard at scavenging) delivered via a castle side door chute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Format
Posted by: benzene on Nov 11, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just have to say, aside from the content of the piece, that I found the format it was presented in to be very readable. Many of the writers here on Alternet like to indulge themselves in pointless verbiage and clever, but overwrought, turns of wordish phrase that obfuscate the point and render the article difficult to read.

The bullet points and sub-headings worked very well to allow us to see the structure of the argument clearly and easily relate one point to another within the argument. Well done!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» grammar police Posted by: Harris20
» I give a shit Posted by: benzene
» RE: Format Posted by: robertkamper
» RE: Format Posted by: gathaiga
Correlation is not causality.
Posted by: Capitalist Pig on Nov 11, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is meaningless because it doesn't consider other factors, such as wars, energy crises, etc. Also, the economy was in recession when Bush II entered office.

The US has a smaller government (measured in percentage of GDP) than the other G-7 nations, higher economic growth, and lower unemployment. From this, one could conclude that lower taxes create a more efficient economy and higher standards of living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speaking of meaningless ... Posted by: monkeywrench
There is no Capitalism without the State.
Posted by: Coleman on Nov 11, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The myth of tax cuts is only one of the myths in Free Market theology, the latest apologia for the systematic injustice, waste, and dull misery of the capitalist system. That faith may very well be on the decline, and a (rhetorically) techno-green, moderate Keynesianism is ascending. There is definitely a historical space to win major concessions from Capital, perhaps even single payer health care, but as usual the American public is completely disorganized.

This article dumps all the blame on one ideological side of the spectrum within the capitalist ruling class, the conservatives.

It ignores the primary reason that people vote to change power in Washington: dissatisfaction with their economic situation. We've cycled with the same two parties for 150 years. In the past 30 years Republicans have dominated, but not absolutely. And the US's previous Keynesian era ultimately ended in a managed stagflation. Oh well, at least it was managed.

How about the headlines on Alternet today: "Make sure Obama makes good on..." or "Help Mr. Obama do this..." etc. Those are quaint, and represent a very real, very powerful emotional sway that Obama has with huge sections of the American public. But real economic change is not on the agenda. The world's eyes are on the US, and the US public, to take the lead in this crisis. Where are the proposals for a global regulatory framework for the G8? What, specifically is our plan to avert ecological catastrophe? Where is the democratic input?

This crisis was a long time coming, globally, and the Left can't afford to merely criticize one half of the philosophies that got us here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay to Play? How About Those Who Can't?
Posted by: Liberty G on Nov 11, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay to play is a popular philosophy with those who have managed to corner as much as 90% of the national wealth within single digit percentages of the population. Tax cuts that foster that benefit the fat cats - and spending cuts give another boost to kicking the poor rest of us further into the gutter. The big difference between private investment and public is that the latter cares about helping citizens to make it, and about seeing that public services are provided, and that the good of all, not just a few greedy individuals is served.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beware of Unintended Consequences!
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 11, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? It depends.

Businesses need capital to operate, but that is not the only thing they need. They depend on a ready supply of customers with money to spend and they depend on the public infrastructure. They need roads, rails, communications systems, an educated workforce, a legal system and so on. If taxes are cut at the expense of any of these other necessities then businesses will fail just as surely as if they lack the capital to operate.

It can be argued that the tax-cut mania of the last eight years (or is it 28 years?) has done just that. Irresponsible tax-cuts for the very wealthy have taken money out of the pockets of consumers to the point that businesses lack customers. In addition these tax-cuts have led to a failing infrastructure that is hampering business operations.

Some of the same people who urge unending tax-cuts (which always seem to go mostly to the very wealthy) have also argued (rather comically) that a rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is really a good thing because plants need this gas to survive. This is really a good analogy.

Sure, plants need carbon dioxide, but they also need water, light and a reasonable temperature. Raising the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperatures which can lead to draught. When a plant is dying because of a lack of water or an overly hot environment then giving it more carbon dioxide will not make it grow bigger or faster. Likewise giving more capital to a business that is limited by insufficient customers will do little good.

What we really need is a little more devotion balance and critical thinking and quite a lot more caution about following simplistic and dogmatic solutions to complicated problems. Both the environment and the economy are complicated and do not lend themselves to quick, easy fixes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Facts are facts. Context is king.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 11, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One could argue that the Congress of the past seven years and President Bush, but approving budgets that borrow vastly, issued a de facto tax increase, or, more precisely, a tax deferment. Consistently calling them "tax cuts" especially by people who 'never met a tax they didn't like', is puzzling.

Maybe that's just a semantics issue, but I think any time you talk about taxes, you have to speak about revenue, debt, and infrastructure investment--the three things federal income taxpayers get to show for sending their money to D.C. land.

The important question, then, is not whether "I wuv more taxes because they make everything super growy" or "I hates me some taxes cuz I are a greedy dood", the question is what is my government doing with the money I work for? Are they making wise decisions? Are they using my dollars to finance higher debt ceilings? Are they pouring my, my kid's, and my kids' kid's prosperity in a perpetual war?

Whether one likes it or not, taxation and representation are intricately linked in this country--if you can't convince someone you're representing them well, they will rapid lose interest in helping you achieve your goals of misrepresenting them...

...Even if you can point to simplistic facts arguments that support your thesis that "big taxes are big good". Taxes are taxing--making sure folks are getting what they pay for, in a sustainable fashion not entirely dependent on increased debt servicing, is a very important aspect of whether a tax promotes prosperity or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good point Posted by: marid
Taxes and spending.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 11, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of things about taxes. Each year you pay an amount and yes it may look big but compare that to your monthly bills and add them all up. Better yet, if you own a business, add up the regular yearly costs and see if your tax bill is anywhere close to that high. Without reasonable taxation, the public infrastructure we all live on, deny it or otherwise, wouldn't be there for us. Currently, the public infrastructure is in dying mode as has been the case for nearly 3 decades. Take a look at the real costs of privatization from getting a plastic bottled drink to your shrinking 401k. Now please tell me why it is somehow "normal" to get outraged at paying your fair share of taxes which are far less costly compared to the costs of a privatized system where the corporations can tell the customers FUCK YOU and rip them off. And why do some people such as Joe the Plumber spend $1000 on a corporate trial lawyer to evade their taxes which was only $1200 to begin with? And we're not even talking about additional penalties to follow. Now, this brings me to my next point, spending. Again, it's a sad truth that many in this country delude themselves into believing that spending recklessly for wars despite its enormous costs is somehow better than taking even a fraction of that money and putting it towards significant improvements in public infrastructure which would also lower the overall costs of privatization since the corporatists can no longer be the powerful bullies they'd otherwise be. I know this might sound a bit difficult for you to digest out there but think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I am outraged... Posted by: Pissed Off Woman
I worry about Alternet with these kinds of arguments!
Posted by: jamesbh999 on Nov 11, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a new reader of Alternet and became very concerned this morning when reading the article on 'tax cuts' and the 'supposed' truth/facts about their impact.
The article offers nothing other than suggested correlations between tax cuts and economic activity and therefore draws unsupported (albeit harshly argued) conclusions that tax cuts result in economic prosperity -- despite even quoting an unnamed economist saying 'there is no theoretical support' for such a conclusion. We all know that correlations between things do not identify causality! The fact that my dog's coat turned gray over the past 5 years does not mean he has anything to do with Web 2.0 advances - it simply means that they happended at the same time. "Alternative" thinking/desires/ideologies need to be held to a higher standard than the arguments profered in this article. Just because we want it very badly does not make it and should not force our reasoning to try and make it so! This article reflects sentiment looking for support and is poor journalism even for the Web.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax cuts do help job growth!
Posted by: kmarx on Nov 11, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you remember correctly, the bush tax cuts put more money in the pockets of investors, CEO's, etc. The mantra was 'cut taxes and jobs will grow'. Well let's see, under the bush tax cuts jobs boomed. You ask why I say this when for most of bush's time in office jobs shrank? (Remember the propaganda about a so called 'jobless recovery'?) The answer is that corporations and the Wall Street crowd invested those tax cuts overseas!!!!!!! You see, when it comes to profit first or country first, the Wall Street crowd will always choose profit, irrespective of the country within which they live - and don't forget it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STILL A LOT OF BS
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Nov 11, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH IS NO HELP, IF THERE ARE SO MANY LOOPHOLES THAT THEY REALLY END UP PAYING LESS. SEEMS THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, THE RICH ALWAYS SKATE AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THEIR SHARE AND THE MIDDLE CLASS ARE THE ONES WHO PAY THRU THE NOSE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: STILL A LOT OF BS Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: STILL A LOT OF BS Posted by: mindtrvlr
» Rich people don't have income Posted by: billwald
What about Fannie/Fred?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 11, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go back to Class!
Most of you college kiddies an't going to be in that dorm room when daddy can't afford to send ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is your point? Posted by: Live Gently
Taxes help when spent on infrastructure
Posted by: billwald on Nov 11, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Libertarian friends seem to think that tax money is sort of burnt as a sin offering to the gods. Tax money should be spent to provide services to the tax payers. Unless we wish to sell all our roads, ports, and bridges to the Chinese . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brute facts, brute approach, but
Posted by: SlyGuy on Nov 11, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an article and suppositions such as this one require more understanding and knowledge than it sheds. Correlations? Over decades? To be sure, there are other factors in play. Here are some:

Economic growth of a more egalitarian kind is demand driven, providing there is employment and income to support it. Trickle down economics is so counter-intuitive it's amazing it's been so well-considered in some circles. But it gets at one concept in this article--that enlarging the accounts of the rich does not translate into growth,b/c it goes towards more self-aggrandization, not investment a la traditional economic theories.

What would tax cuts in the middle and tax increases in the upper upper income categories do, other than signal support for the middle and a sense of change?

Hard to say entirely, what with all the consumer and student debt there is to pay down. There isn't much confidence in investing it in the markets. Perhaps it would make more of a difference if the cuts are in the form of really useful credits rather than rates. And what about the possibility that little of it matters without closing vast loopholes that allow corporate profits to go untaxed or offshored, if what we are really talking about is tax fairness.

I am not one to favor draconian upper tax rates. If the tax code weren't so rigged and screwed up, you wouldn't need confiscatory rates. I also do not support tax reforms or cuts of any kind unless the AMT (Avaricious Maximum Tax) is abolished.

Back to basics, an economy improves not on the basis of tax and fiscal policy alone, but on meaningful job creation and properly regulated markets and securities dealings. Deregulation of markets, no oversight and no accountability are largely at fault in our current plight. That and no federal or state prosecution of lawbreakers at the highest levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax cut and Keynesian stimulus
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A tax cut in and of itself it not a Keynesian stimulus. SPENDING is the Keynesian stimulus. So, a tax cut for someone who is likely to spend the money on goods and services is a Keynesian stimulus. Cut taxes for, say, a schoolteacher, and they are likely to spend it on goods and services. A tax cut for Bill gates is the OPPOSITE of a Keynesian stimulus; he is likely to invest the money he gets back, meaning take it out of circulation. It is logically possible that RAISING taxes on someone who is investing their money could qualify as a Keynesian stimulus. If you raise taxes on someone who is saving (taking capital out of circulation) and then spend that money on goods and services (put that money back into circulation), that is a Keynesian stimulus. The tax cut is not the variable that decides what is a Keynesian stimulus. Whether capital is put into or taken out of circulation is the variable that decides what is a Keynesian stimulus. So, for example, during WWI the tax rate on the wealthiest was very high- over 90%. Nobody was saving. They wanted to recirculate all existing capital. The government was spending that money to build the military- that's a Keynsian stimulus. That's how Keynesian stimulation ended the Great Depression. It wasn't through tax cuts, it was through spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're in BIG trouble
Posted by: willymack on Nov 11, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our balooning population is rapidly outstripping Mother Earth's ability to sustain us, and as usual we're quibbling about something unrelated to our real problems. Big money and big religion, as usual, have successfully teamed up to obfuscate the fact that there are far too many people on our world to properly feed and care for. Making even more money and saving more "souls" are hardly a sane policy for an Earth that's being poisoned to death by the same fools striving to make their bizare points heard. Nobody's ever successfully tried to bring about a more just society, based on Humanist principles and a moneyless method of sharing the Earth's bounty in a fair and balanced fashion, as long as the blandishments of the cannibals currently in charge are listened to and followed. How many times do these criminals have to keep robbing us blind before we turn away from them and try something truly NEW?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What do you suggest? Posted by: benzene
» RE: What do you suggest? Posted by: willymack
Tax cuts for whom?
Posted by: jmelton on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lary Beinhart identifies an interesting and potentially important fact, but judging from the information he's presented, he is not accurately describing what that fact is. What he discussed was the correlation between the TOP INCOME tax bracket and economic performance. No mention was made of what was happening during this historical period with other income tax brackets, or with other types of taxes such as sales taxes or Social Security and Medicare taxes. From what I recall of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, they benefited the wealthy vastly more than people at lower income levels, who in some cases did not benefit at all, and other taxes such as sales taxes that are not progressive in nature were not cut. In fact, the Social Security and Medicare tax rates have increased substantially since the days when the top tax bracket was 70-odd percent.

So, it may well be that overall taxes did not decrease, or even increased, for lower-income people during the "tax cut" periods.

My guess is that if we look at a wider array of variables than taxes, we'll find evidence for this explanation of the correlation that Beinhart has identified: In times when the top marginal rate is cut, wealthier people have much more political power, whereas working-class people (and working-class organizations such as unions) have much less, so various things including the tax structure, wages, etc. change in ways that hurt their financial situation. (Certainly, wages have stagnated or declined in real terms during much of the last few decades when there have been so many cuts in the top tax brackets.) So, they're not able to spend as much money, and there winds up being too little money out there to purchase too many goods and services. Manufacturers cut production because not enough stuff is being bought, laying people off in the process and maybe cutting wages as well, so now there's even less stuff purchase, and we have a recessionary spiral.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Beinhart indicated, the wealthy engage in speculation more than in the past because they've got more money to speculate with. And also because investing in production of more goods doesn't make sense if not all the goods already being produced are getting bought anyway. The speculative bubble bursts, and, boom, we have an economic crisis.

As I said, this explanation of the correlation Beinhart points out is not based on new ideas; in fact, it's very much in the vein of the economic thinking of Keynes and--horrors--Marx!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walter
Posted by: buckaroo9258 on Nov 12, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed something missing in this logic. The author stated that "A" was followed by "B", therefore D must be fact. What happened to "C"? I did not see any valid argument to show that tax hikes spur economic growth. And what the author defines as a "bubble" IS defined as economic growth by quite a few economists. Sorry...the argument as stated doesn't hold water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Larry's tail is wagging the dog
Posted by: Ouijaman on Nov 12, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Larry (can I call you Larry? thanks) hangs his large hat on his "fact" that recessions always seem to follow tax cuts. What he seems to be missing is that tax cuts are almost always a -response- to a sluggish economy. Economic data comes in weaker and weaker for months before the offical date they tag as the start of a recession.

An exception to this was the last recession of 2001-2002. Bush enacted his first tax cut in summer of 2001, several months after the official start date of that recession. But he had already planned the cut prior to his election. His capital gains tax cut came at the end of the recession, the mildest recession in history, btw. The cause of
that recesson is well known -- the dotcom bubble and bust.

Speaking of the dotcom bubble, that was THE single largest stock market bubble in the history of the Dow Jones, yet it came not after
a tax cut, but followed a tax hike under Clinton.

I'm sorry Mr. Larry, but you're "brutal facts" are nothing but hand shadows on the wall. Thanks for the show. Ed Sullivan woulda loved
you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is nonsense!
Posted by: violawall on Nov 12, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone that agrees with this article needs to read "Economics 101" by Thomas Sowell. The writer of this article has everything backwards. When the rich do well, so do everyone else. The trickle down effect. It works the other way around also. When the rich do poorly, so do everyone else. Investigate for yourselves people! Don't believe everything you read on this website! I never new a poor person to give someone a job! Have you?
Vi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY increasing taxes on the top %1 strenghthens the economy
Posted by: Pissed Off Woman on Nov 12, 2008 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer of this article didn't mention it, so I'm gonna lay out the case for you. The reason why everybody is going broke these days is because the cost of very basic things--housing, health insurance, and education--has gone up. Healthcare costs have gone up because the pharma companies and the HMOs have a lock on us. The answer to that is single payer healthcare.

Housing and education costs (and the two are intimately related, as the best school districts are the ones with the highest property values) have gone up because a caste of mega-rich, created in large part by cuts on taxes for capital gains and high incomes, has bid up the price of a college education or a home in a nice neighborhood so that they become unaffordable for everybody else. Anybody who lives in a place like New York City will be nodding their head right now--gentrification is forcing people out of the homes they've lived in for decades.

To prevent costs of basic things like shelter being bid up to impossibly high levels, taxes must be progressive, designed to prevent anyone from being too poor OR too rich. Otherwise there will be no middle class neighborhoods, just rich gated communities and ghettoes.

This means a tax policy that cuts taxes on the poor and middle class and increases them for the rich--exactly what Obama's proposing. I'm disgusted that Obama voted for the Wall Street bailout, but I like his tax plan a lot--it's just what our country needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a silly idea
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Nov 13, 2008 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has to be one of the weaker arguments that I have seen lately. You are really stretching it to ignore so many dynamics of economics to jump to a silly conclusion.

There are a few things to point out..

One.. the definition of tax is "To impede", as in you tax your engine going up hill. It works the same in economics, If you want to impede prosperity or the economy, go ahead and tax it. There is less money available for investment, and subsequently less new growth in the economy.


The boom bust cycle is a natural element of economics. It went on before the government taxed us at any notable level, and it will go on until our demise. The sun rises in the east, cars rust, and there are boom bust cycles. The trick is to sock it away in the good times and be well positioned for the bust.

Usually the boom comes when people have some prosperity to invest. Your argument would assume/suggest that it would be as a result of the tax cut. The bust comes when there is a 'gold rush' to the latest fad investment (tech boom, real estate boom, ethanol, gas/oil futures)and it is run up to absurd levels. Usually the fat cats get out on time with the money, and the common man is left with the bust. With such huge amounts of wealth pulled out of the greater economy by a few well positioned fat cats, there will be repercussions, recessions and so on.


The point that you try to make is seriously contrived and a real stretch. There are so many dynamics that go along with the history that you site, it is really sifting for a predetermined conclusion to try and sell what you are selling. At some point the ultimate conclusion of your thesis is that we should give our money/prosperity to the government so that we don't have a boom to bust. The people have acted irresponsibly with the prosperity endowed by the tax cuts, and caused a boom/bust cycle, and now the state should make our investment decisions for us in our best interest to try to level everything out.

I will enjoy watching the folly of your little experiment from the lower middle class rungs of the ladder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]