Bill Maher Rips Republicans Over California’s Booming Economy

[SuperDave]

Yep...you can't tell me how the failure of Keynesianism on steroids in the present is somehow the fault of Reagan economic policies in the 1980s.

Giving everyone tax cuts allows them to keep more of the money they earned. It allows them more options in their personal economic decisions. The rich benefit. But so too does everyone else. Because instead of investing solely into the stock market, the wealthy invest their money into the economy. That creates opportunity and wealth for those who are hired in a growing economy that truly benefits everyone.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf



Giving the individual more control over money they earn, whether they are at the top or bottom of the earnings market, actually works.

If you don't believe that, then I can always provide an economic comparison between Libertarian-inspired Chile and "Socialist Paradise" Venezuela. But I strongly suspect you will not wish to go there.

Ok.. here is what Reagan did...

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Ok.. here is what Reagan did...

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.

An amazing shift here. Now Reagan is a Keynesian!

This is what happens when we can't prove "trickle down" is responsible for what is taking place now under socialist economic policies.

:lolabove:

Tax receipts were not a consequence of tax increases. They were the consequence of reduced regulations and tax cuts serving as incentives for those with capital to return to the economic market they had abandoned during the loose money 1970s. The increased revenue was a product of increased economic activity in the private sector during the Reagan years.

As for the claim Reagan's tax cuts were cancelled out by tax increases:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-time...tration-and-how-did-it-affect-the-U-S-economy

Here's a fuller list of his tax cuts and tax increases:
Tax Cuts
Billions of Dollars
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 -264.4
Interest and Dividends Tax Compliance Act of 1983 -1.8
Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 -0.2
Tax Reform Act of 1986 -8.9
Total cumulative tax cuts -275.3

Tax Increases
Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7 [7][8]

When does a total tax increase of 132.7 equal a tax cut of 275.3?

What did that massive tax cut produce? An increase in tax revenue and a higher share of that revenue being paid for by the wealthiest segment of society. Back to the CATO Institute study:

Contrary to popular rhetoric, the wealthiest Americans did not pay less taxes; rather, they paid more taxes after the income tax rate cuts in 1981. In constant dollars, the richest 10 percent of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but paid $237 billion in 1988. The remaining 90 percent of households paid $5 billion less in income taxes over this period. [52] They earned more and they paid more. In fact, Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence Lindsey has shown that taxes paid by the wealthy were substantially higher than they would have been if the top tax rate had remained at 70 percent.[53] Figure 14 shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans actually rose from 18 percent in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The wealthiest 5 percent of
Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent. So the rise in the deficit was clearly not a result of "tax cuts for the rich."

If you want more actual revenue from the wealthiest in our society, then why not encourage them to participate in our economy through the kind of regulatory and tax reforms we had back in the 1980s?

Why engage in meaningless stunts against "the rich" when historically they fail to produce real results beneficial to our citizens?

 

[Herman Hickman]

"The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. What coal miner or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take sixty percent or more of his extra pay? Any system that penalizes success and accomplishment is wrong. Any system that discourages work, discourages productivity, discourages economic progress, is wrong.

"If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rates and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll become more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all--and more revenue for government."

It was true in Coolidge's time. It was true in Reagan's era. And it remains truth today amidst the clear failure of the Nanny Tax State to produce positive economic results after a decade of stimulus, regulation, and government control.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

It was true in Coolidge's time. It was true in Reagan's era. And it remains truth today amidst the clear failure of the Nanny Tax State to produce positive economic results after a decade of stimulus, regulation, and government control.

The '20s were great times for us here in the South. I remember my grandpa talking about no electricity or running water in most homes outside of major cities. Then that damn Roosevelt and his Rural Electrification plan came around and screwed up all of those Great Gatsby parties great grandpa was throwing.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Probably has nothing to do with the democratically controlled house that refused to work with Schwarzenegger but fell over themselves helping Brown. Political douchebaggery at its finest.

 

[Herman Hickman]

The '20s were great times for us here in the South. I remember my grandpa talking about no electricity or running water in most homes outside of major cities. Then that damn Roosevelt and his Rural Electrification plan came around and screwed up all of those Great Gatsby parties great grandpa was throwing.

Another fan of the Venezuelan Economic Model. Fighting for the middle class? More like fighting for the equal outcome of socialist-style poverty across all segments of society save for the government rulers you worship.

Yes indeed. The mighty government came in under Hoover, instituted protectionism and massive government spending, and great times were had by all right on through 1930s under FDR.

Is that the story you wish to tell?

1920-21 Depression: 18 Months

Great Depression: 132 Months

Why? Because the Federal Government decreased its size and spending, releasing capital resources into the free market:

https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Statists like you don't like to talk about that particular Depression. Because Harding did the exact opposite of what the Keynesians proposed in the 1930s.

Monetary stimulus merely encourages entrepreneurs to continue along their unsustainable production trajectories; it is as if, instead of alerting the master builder to his error, we merely intoxicated him in order to delay his discovery of the truth. But such measures make the eventual bust no less inevitable — merely more painful.

If the Austrian view is correct — and I believe the theoretical and empirical evidence strongly indicates that it is — then the best approach to recovery would be close to the opposite of these Keynesian strategies. The government budget should be cut, not increased, thereby releasing resources that private actors can use to realign the capital structure.

The money supply should not be increased. Bailouts merely freeze entrepreneurial error in place, instead of allowing the redistribution of resources into the hands of parties better able to provide for consumer demands in light of entrepreneurs' new understanding of real conditions. Emergency lending to troubled firms perpetuates the misallocation of resources and extends favoritism to firms engaged in unsustainable activities at the expense of sound firms prepared to put those resources to more appropriate uses.

You can't talk about Harding or Coolidge and how they ended a major Depression in 18 months and generated robust economic growth. People like you have to feed the myth that they were responsible for the Great Depression, ignoring all the while the impact massive hikes in tariffs and government spending had on prolonging the misery.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Another fan of the Venezuelan Economic Model. Fighting for the middle class? More like fighting for the equal outcome of socialist-style poverty across all segments of society save for the government rulers you worship.

Yes indeed. The mighty government came in under Hoover, instituted protectionism and massive government spending, and great times were had by all right on through 1930s under FDR.

Is that the story you wish to tell?

1920-21 Depression: 18 Months

Great Depression: 132 Months

Why? Because the Federal Government decreased its size and spending, releasing capital resources into the free market:

https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Statists like you don't like to talk about that particular Depression. Because Harding did the exact opposite of what the Keynesians proposed in the 1930s.



You can't talk about Harding or Coolidge and how they ended a major Depression in 18 months and generated robust economic growth. People like you have to feed the myth that they were responsible for the Great Depression, ignoring all the while the impact massive hikes in tariffs and government spending had on prolonging the misery.

I never mentioned Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover causing the Great Depression, nor equal outcomes for everyone.

Yeah, I checked my post. No mention.

I implied under the economic policies of the '20s, the rich got richer and the rest were left to fend for themselves, as they had been during the whole Guilded Age. Had Coolidge ran again, would he have helped improve the lives of poor rural Americans, particularly in the South? Or would that have been fixed, eventually, by the mysterious "free market" we hear so much about?

 

[Herman Hickman]

I never mentioned Coolidge causing the Great Depression.

Yeah, I checked my post. No mention.

I implied under the economic policies of the '20s, the rich got richer and the rest were left to fend for themselves, as they had been during the whole Guilded Age. Had Coolidge ran again, would he have helped improve the lives of poor rural Americans, particularly in the South? Or would that have been fixed, eventually, by the mysterious "free market" we hear so much about?

It was fixed by the free market in 1921. Took 18 months.

Again...how were the economic conditions of this country assisted by a government spending and regulatory program that prolonged the Depression? In 1940, the unemployment rate in this country stood at 14%. Hate to tell you this, but that was 8 years after the New Deal.

Compare that to 18 months for the 1920-21 Depression. The "mysterious free market" was the far better option to take over the path Hoover and Roosevelt took with the next serious economic downturn.

As for the "rich getting richer," how are things going under the present socialist/crony government model given to us by Bush 43 and Obama?

Do you want to go there? Or are you just going to keep pretending an expansive and corrupt welfare state produces economic success when 10 years of evidence argues against it?

 

[SuperDave]

So.. I guess your links are correct and mine aren't.

Ok.. cool.

Let's do this..

Reagan.. he wasn't smart enough to do these things.

Nice.. liked talking about movies..

But knowing what was going on around him.. clueless

He did what he was told.

 

[SuperDave]

It was fixed by the free market in 1921. Took 18 months.

Again...how were the economic conditions of this country assisted by a government spending and regulatory program that prolonged the Depression? In 1940, the unemployment rate in this country stood at 14%. Hate to tell you this, but that was 8 years after the New Deal.

Compare that to 18 months for the 1920-21 Depression. The "mysterious free market" was the far better option to take over the path Hoover and Roosevelt took with the next serious economic downturn.

As for the "rich getting richer," how are things going under the present socialist/crony government model given to us by Bush 43 and Obama?

Do you want to go there? Or are you just going to keep pretending an expansive and corrupt welfare state produces economic success when 10 years of evidence argues against it?

Yes.. I'm glad we have free healthcare and education for everybody now. I'm glad the rich are paying a higher tax rate. I'm glad the federal government raised the minimum wage to $15. I'm glad more gun laws have been passed. Thank you for reminding me of these things.