What has two thumbs and hates job creators? Fox News' Stuart Varney, that's who! Here, let us watch him argue at a Patriotic Millionaire as he patiently tries to explain why taxing millionaires will help fix the deficit. It starts out like any other Fox News segment -- loud graphics, lots of noise, lots of moving animated gif thingies, and then Stuart Varney snorts (literally snorts) that there will be one of these "Patriotic Millionaire" people on his show.
At this point, I refuse to believe anyone on Fox News is doing anything more than reciting what Roger Ailes tells them to say, purely for propaganda purposes.
The underlying reason for the Post-War Boom was that during most of those twenty years, the US had the only un-destroyed industrial economy in the world (give or take Canada). The post-war boom <i>should</i> serve as an excellent example of the fact that the tax rate does not, by itself, control the economic cycle. Real-world economic factors are far more influential.
It is unfortunate that 28% of the American electorate are economic morons.
I think Fox succeeds by assiduously pushing the red-meat emotional issues -- God, gays, guns, abortion, and foreigners -- to get the audience onboard, and then just lying about things like economics.
What amazes me is that so many of the rubes (many of whom are our age) are able to forget that they <i>lived through</i> those high-marginal-rate years. The years that they now view as the Golden Age.
My apologies for not expressing myself clearly. I agree with you. I was trying to point out that &quot;being the only surviving economy&quot; has a much stronger influence on the economic cycle than does marginal tax rate.
Similarly, &quot;consumer demand&quot; has a much stronger influence than does marginal tax rate, which is why the third of the &quot;stimulus&quot; that went for tax breaks was a waste of money.
I&#039;ll agree that the FICA tax break was as stimulative as a tax break can get, because it wasn&#039;t a reduction in <i>marginal</i> rate, but a reduction in base rate.
However, as I understand it, deploying the same amount of money, in the form of actual gummint <i>spending</i> would be substantially more stimulative, mainly because it would result in more employed people; so a higher fraction of the input would reappear as downstream spending, rather than debt reduction or savings.
Your second point is exactly correct. Wealthy persons and major corporations are sitting on enormous numbers (dare one say, trillions) of dollars of cash. They are not investing this cash in business development because there is <b>no fucking demand</b>, not because of uncertainty about future tax rates. And maybe a little bit still trying to make the Kenyan a one-term President.
Warren Buffet ain&#039;t bad, for a billionaire. He&#039;s like a normal human U.S. American, only with lots of commas on his monthly statements.
&quot;One break, coming up&quot;.
Okay, <i>you&#039;re</i> old.
It is, indeed. I think you can say ABP.
At this point, I refuse to believe anyone on Fox News is doing anything more than reciting what Roger Ailes tells them to say, purely for propaganda purposes.
The underlying reason for the Post-War Boom was that during most of those twenty years, the US had the only un-destroyed industrial economy in the world (give or take Canada). The post-war boom <i>should</i> serve as an excellent example of the fact that the tax rate does not, by itself, control the economic cycle. Real-world economic factors are far more influential.
It is unfortunate that 28% of the American electorate are economic morons.
I think Fox succeeds by assiduously pushing the red-meat emotional issues -- God, gays, guns, abortion, and foreigners -- to get the audience onboard, and then just lying about things like economics.
What amazes me is that so many of the rubes (many of whom are our age) are able to forget that they <i>lived through</i> those high-marginal-rate years. The years that they now view as the Golden Age.
My apologies for not expressing myself clearly. I agree with you. I was trying to point out that &quot;being the only surviving economy&quot; has a much stronger influence on the economic cycle than does marginal tax rate.
Similarly, &quot;consumer demand&quot; has a much stronger influence than does marginal tax rate, which is why the third of the &quot;stimulus&quot; that went for tax breaks was a waste of money.
I&#039;ll agree that the FICA tax break was as stimulative as a tax break can get, because it wasn&#039;t a reduction in <i>marginal</i> rate, but a reduction in base rate.
However, as I understand it, deploying the same amount of money, in the form of actual gummint <i>spending</i> would be substantially more stimulative, mainly because it would result in more employed people; so a higher fraction of the input would reappear as downstream spending, rather than debt reduction or savings.
Your second point is exactly correct. Wealthy persons and major corporations are sitting on enormous numbers (dare one say, trillions) of dollars of cash. They are not investing this cash in business development because there is <b>no fucking demand</b>, not because of uncertainty about future tax rates. And maybe a little bit still trying to make the Kenyan a one-term President.
Mighty fine strawman you&#039;ve erected there Stu.
GFY, you disingenuous hack...
This is how you do it. You lower rates for the top and get growth- just like it did for the last thirty years. SMH
Never bring a fact to a Faux News Ideology Fight.
Warren Buffet ain&#039;t bad, for a billionaire. He&#039;s like a normal human U.S. American, only with lots of commas on his monthly statements.