Comments on: Continuing with the 'shameless commie propaganda' on tax cuts and revenues http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/ Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:23:59 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7960 Anonymous Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:14:45 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7960 Thanks Thanks

]]> By: Justin Fox http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7959 Justin Fox Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:53:11 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7959 I don't know the details off the top of my head, but only a tiny % of taxpayers were in the 90% bracket. I guess they lived with it by accepting country club memberships in lieu of pay. ;-) Also, cap gains rates were lower. I don't know the details off the top of my head, but only a tiny % of taxpayers were in the 90% bracket. I guess they lived with it by accepting country club memberships in lieu of pay. ;-)

Also, cap gains rates were lower.

]]> By: Feebs http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7958 Feebs Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:40:24 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7958 Little off topic but how did people in the 50's live with 90% tax? Little off topic but how did people in the 50's live with 90% tax?

]]> By: Justin Fox http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7957 Justin Fox Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:38:39 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7957 <em>However, the "Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers." Congressional spending, anyone?</em> The tax cuts for the nonrich were money losers, period. Government spending doesn't enter into that equation. Notice that I'm not saying those tax cuts were a horrible idea. They just <em>did not pay for themselves</em>. However, the "Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers." Congressional spending, anyone?

The tax cuts for the nonrich were money losers, period. Government spending doesn't enter into that equation.

Notice that I'm not saying those tax cuts were a horrible idea. They just did not pay for themselves.

]]> By: Trey http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7956 Trey Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:42:21 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7956 With Christmas I'm a little late in getting to the article regarding tax cuts and revenues. The article "cherry-picks" history. The article has John McCain stating that tax cuts pay for themselves. This is true. Yet he voted against George W.'s tax cuts. Now he is a true-believer because he wants the nomination. Smell that folks, it's what passes for principle these days. Giuliani is the true supply-sider (Ron Paul might settle for supply-side tax cuts if that is all he could get) in this race. I'm a supply-sider, but will not back Giuliani because he will discredit the cause by linking it and Republicans to "conservative" wars to make the rest of the world into small "d" democrats. Another example of sloppy history relates to Presidents Reagan and Clinton. The article concedes that Reagan's tax cuts for the rich paid for themselves and the evidence backs this up. However, the "Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers." Congressional spending, anyone? I think the Constitution gives Congress that burden of deciding how the revenues are spent. I don't recall Congress stuffing the money into a mattress during the Reagan era. Reagan didn't have the support to sustain vetoes of congressional spending bills. I guess that's his fault, but thank God for that fiscal disciplinarian, Bill Clinton. Ever hear of George Bush, Sr.? He's not in your article which leaps from Reagan to Clinton in a paragraph. George Bush, Sr. caved in to congressional Democrats and said "Yes, new taxes." So Reagan gets blamed for the fiscal mess left to Bill Clinton, not Bush, Sr. and Congress. If you are not a Curious Communist, who favors "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax", and are a capitalist, then you are not "curious" enough. With Christmas I'm a little late in getting to the article regarding tax cuts and revenues. The article "cherry-picks" history. The article has John McCain stating that tax cuts pay for themselves. This is true. Yet he voted against George W.'s tax cuts. Now he is a true-believer because he wants the nomination. Smell that folks, it's what passes for principle these days.

Giuliani is the true supply-sider (Ron Paul might settle for supply-side tax cuts if that is all he could get) in this race. I'm a supply-sider, but will not back Giuliani because he will discredit the cause by linking it and Republicans to "conservative" wars to make the rest of the world into small "d" democrats.

Another example of sloppy history relates to Presidents Reagan and Clinton. The article concedes that Reagan's tax cuts for the rich paid for themselves and the evidence backs this up. However, the "Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers." Congressional spending, anyone? I think the Constitution gives Congress that burden of deciding how the revenues are spent. I don't recall Congress stuffing the money into a mattress during the Reagan era. Reagan didn't have the support to sustain vetoes of congressional spending bills. I guess that's his fault, but thank God for that fiscal disciplinarian, Bill Clinton. Ever hear of George Bush, Sr.? He's not in your article which leaps from Reagan to Clinton in a paragraph. George Bush, Sr. caved in to congressional Democrats and said "Yes, new taxes." So Reagan gets blamed for the fiscal mess left to Bill Clinton, not Bush, Sr. and Congress.

If you are not a Curious Communist, who favors "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax", and are a capitalist, then you are not "curious" enough.

]]> By: Esben http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7955 Esben Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:45:58 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7955 Alex, the "no major economic events" was the assumption for projecting what would have happened WITHOUT the tax cuts. So obviously assuming no tax cuts IS applicable for analyzing what would have happened without tax cuts. Sigh... Alex, the "no major economic events" was the assumption for projecting what would have happened WITHOUT the tax cuts.

So obviously assuming no tax cuts IS applicable for analyzing what would have happened without tax cuts. Sigh...

]]> By: Alex http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7954 Alex Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:53:15 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7954 To Corey "Alex, we disagree about the false premise you have set up." Can you spell it out for me, please? To Corey "Alex, we disagree about the false premise you have set up."

Can you spell it out for me, please?

]]> By: Corey http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7953 Corey Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:04 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7953 Alex, we disagree about the false premise you have set up. You're discussing a straw man, not what actually happens. How about actually making arguments that reflect actual actions not hypotheticals that no one considers as viable? Alex, we disagree about the false premise you have set up. You're discussing a straw man, not what actually happens.

How about actually making arguments that reflect actual actions not hypotheticals that no one considers as viable?

]]> By: Alex http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7952 Alex Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:30:44 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7952 To Esben, I suppose we had discussed Reagan's and W's tax cuts and your assumption "no major economic events" is not applicable. To Esben, I suppose we had discussed Reagan's and W's tax cuts and your assumption "no major economic events" is not applicable.

]]> By: Esben http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/comment-page-2/#comment-7951 Esben Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:32:30 +0000 http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/14/continuing_with_the_shameless/#comment-7951 Alex, who was talking about 1981 or 2001? I was explaining the basic logic behind how to estimate if tax cuts have cost revenue or not. Has nothing to do with any specific years. If there are major economic events (not caused by the tax cuts) then obviously you have to take those into account also. Alex, who was talking about 1981 or 2001? I was explaining the basic logic behind how to estimate if tax cuts have cost revenue or not. Has nothing to do with any specific years. If there are major economic events (not caused by the tax cuts) then obviously you have to take those into account also.

]]>