50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

yeah, that's why we are 20 Trillion in debt? the problem is the rich are not tricking down..... inflation has outpaced the min wage

 

I will give you 29% of $946.29 and you only have to give me 22% of $1258.66. Since 29% is always more, you would jump at the deal, right?

 

Saying my position is weak is the the same as showing it. I made my position clear and backed it up with irrefutable facts. While you are welcome to make spending and cash flow separate issues, they are not. You appear to have the same cavalier attitude about our hard earned tax dollar as the irresponsible politicians.

CA has the highest taxes. Please tell us how society has improved as a result:

 

Do you think feigning obtuseness fools anyone?

 

Its your claim. If you believe your own words, you would jump at the deal. When can we do the transaction?

Ignoring and dodging results is the only option for those towing a party line. It took you 18 pages to post 2 items.

 

Measured how? Obviously it raises the most total revenue because its population and economy are so much larger than any other state's. But in per capita tax burden, CA does not even make the top five:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States

The only tax rate I know of that is highest in CA is the top marginal income tax rate.

Government spending tends to account for a very stable fraction of GDP; but over the decades, most US states have specifically reduced their reliance on property taxes. CA is the leader in that trend. Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, CA has reduced property taxes by more than 1/3 as a fraction of state GDP. It has had to increase all other taxes even more than that because of the social and economic damage low property taxes cause. Please tell us how CA society has improved since 1978 as a result of Prop 13, other than in the level of subsidy given to idle landowning.

 

Do you not grasp the difference between spending and income to a balance sheet? That debt is not a result of tax revenues it is a result of spending.

 

what did Bush sign into laws that added 1 trillion a year to the debt, cause that is when it started

if there was something that did this, point it out (other than his two wars of course)

 

He signed nothing that did so. In fact he and the Republican's had the deficit down to a paltry $161 billion in FY2007 WITH the funding for the wars as the wars ended.

 

How high up do they rate on how many of that capita don't pay any taxes such as the homeless, low income, illegal aliens.

2020 State Tax Rates



https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/state-income-tax-rates

That 12.3% is the highest in the country

 

Everyone reading knows is pointless to try and have a discussion with you as you will merely claim you have already refuted anything posted, as you demonstrate regularly, and refuse to answer direct questions to you falsely claiming you have responded. Your history of obfuscation well documented.

And of course your claims of white flags, no white flag offered. So don't fallaciously claim one as that seems to be your only goal on this board.

 

As I said it has always been a myth and there is not a shred of doubt, it is.

 

I claim supply-side works as it did in the middle 1990's to 2000 and again from 2001- 2007. When did trickle up work?

And no what happened in the other world economies is not what happened here. If you want to discuss how supply-side economics works here the show me where it didn't.
And if you want something to refute the OP

"Probably the most detailed study of the tax changes in the eighties was conducted by Lawrence Lindsey of Harvard University. Lindsey used a computer simulation model to estimate the impact of the eighties' tax-rate changes on the various components of income. He found that after the tax rates were lowered, the wages and salaries of high-income taxpayers were approximately 30 percent larger than projected. Similarly, after the rate cuts capital gains were approximately 100 percent higher than projected, and high-income taxpayers' business income was a whopping 200 percent higher than expected. Lindsey concluded that the main supply-side effects resulted from (a) people paying themselves more in the form of money income rather than fringe benefits and amenities, (b) increases in business activity, and (c) a reduction in tax shelter activities. His findings undercut the position of those supply-side critics who had assumed that substantial supply-side effects were dependent on a large increase in labor supply.

Studies linking rate changes with changes in tax revenue measure the short-term effects of tax policy. But because taxpayers take time to adjust, revenues are even more responsive to rate changes in the long run. James Long and I conducted a study that found that taxpayers in states with lower marginal tax rates had much lower deductions and much lower expenditures on tax shelters than taxpayers in states with higher marginal rates. We found that when the combined federal-state marginal tax rate rises above 50 percent, the government's tax revenues decline. Lindsey estimates that the government's revenue begins declining at even lower tax rates, approximately 35 percent....

...Reflecting the dominant Keynesian view at the beginning of the eighties, most economists thought that tax changes influenced output and revenue primarily by changing the demand for goods and services. Both research and the tax policy changes of the eighties, however, indicate that supply-side incentive effects are quite important. While controversy continues about the precise magnitude of the supply-side effects, the view that marginal tax rates in excess of 40 percent exert a destructive influence on the incentive of people to work and use resources wisely is now widely accepted among economists. This was not true prior to the eighties. An important piece of evidence for the shift in thinking is a 1987 statement by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which had been critical of the supply-side claims and had always assumed in its revenue projections that taxpayers did not respond at all to changes in tax rates. The CBO wrote: "The data show considerable evidence of a very significant revenue response among taxpayers at the highest income levels." This change in thinking is the major legacy of supply-side economics."
https://www.econtalk.org/library/Enc1/SupplySideEconomics.html

You see it is not a simple math equation that 40% tax rate produces more tax revenue than a 35% tax rate. That static model some assert has long been disproven. And was shown the last time we had budget surpluses and low deficits.

 

Red-Herring. What you are writing doesn't refute what the Study states. They bring the receipts, in full detail.

Working Paper 55 (lse.ac.uk)

Show me that their figures on these 18 countries are wrong. Directly. Numbers, specifically as incorrect. Not generic blogs.

I have seen no data showing their conclusion is false.

 

Please learn how to use the quote tags etc

Thank you.

 

Who cares?

States care when they don't have enough money to repair roads, put books and supplies in schools, or when they can't hire enough teachers that your child has to sit in a classroom of 40 other kids and gets not enough attention he or she needs. The middle class and the poor care, because the the latest tax reduction on the rich have sent deficits soaring, which, over time, leads to inflation, which, over time, reduces the purchasing power for those who are less able to hedge ( the lower middle and poor ) to the advantage of those who are able to hedge ( the rich ). Thus, the overall long term effect is to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich ( remember, there is no free lunch, someone has to pay for inflation, you cant print wealth out of thin air ) .

The government, when the income tax was invented, was far less expensive than it is now, and the nation, overall, was no where near as dynamic and complex. You can't use history to assess what is appropriate today.

The middle and lower classes should pay less, and the rich should pay more.

The burden of taxation should be proportional to how well individuals benefit from the system, i.e., according to ability to pay.

I don't have my hands in anyone's pockets. You are resorting to the deceptive trick of trying to reduce a policy to a personal transaction. Taxes are not 'theft', theft is a crime. The constitution states that the government has the authority to tax income, which means that Taxes are a collective effort, not 'someone with his hands in someone's pockets'. A portion of your income belongs to the state, per the constitution. That isn't up for debate, that is a fact. The debate is, 'how much? ' and 'where will it be spent? ' and the answer to that is up to the electorate. If you think your taxes are too high, vote someone in who is sympathetic to your point of view. If not enough people feel the way you do and your guy isn't elected, well, that's democracy for ya. If you can think of better system, I'm all ears.

 

Hey VanCleef, you're one of my favorite actors ( I'm a fan of westerns ) !!

Regarding your sig, check out www.presidentialdata.org

 

yet the debt went up a trillion a year under Bush, so what caused that, was it the two wars, what caused the debt to rise

 

CA does not have the highest taxes, in fact Ohio and Kansas are right in the same ball park with CA.

 

Who would need a billion a guy with 4 billion in a tax haven of a billion to the 40 billion poor? no argument is there.

 

2nd white flag noted and accepted. Everyone reading, including you, knows why you can’t address the data and facts I present which refute your claims.

 

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/fun-facts/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-taxes/L6HPAVqSF

The top 10 highest income tax states (or legal jurisdictions) for 2020 are:

1. California 13.3%
2. Hawaii 11%
3. New Jersey 10.75%
4. Oregon 9.9%
5. Minnesota 9.85%
6. District of Columbia 8.95%
7. New York 8.82%
8. Vermont 8.75%
9. Iowa 8.53%
10. Wisconsin 7.65%

And that doesn't count the high sales tax (Almost 10% where I live) 2 gas taxes as well as taxes described as "fees" when registering a vehicle.

 

Such questions are based on a false premise because the homeless, low income, and illegal aliens do pay taxes such as sales taxes. So you are just flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact.

I repeat: tax rate on what??

OK, so exactly as I said, CA only ranks highest in its top marginal personal income tax rate, not in total tax burden. It does not even make the top five in total tax burden. So your claim is misleading at best.

 

Total tax burden and yes the high income taxes are driving people out.