The Worst President in History?

This has long been the argument of laffer enthusiasts and Conservatives in general. Problem is, they always assume that the point of optimum taxation is already passed, instead of farther along.

Where is the evidence that raising tax rates in America does not raise revenues? I can provide several real-world examples from the last 25 years that it in fact does raise revenues. Can you? Several examples?

Cycloptichorn

I am for balanced budgets, but I think an analysis of the budget reveals that entitlements are our biggest and growing barrier to balanced budgets, not military expenditures.

What entitlement are you talking about? The social security payments all workers pay into the system?

Social Security is one. Medicare is another. We are reaching a period where the ratio of contributors vs retirees is being reduced, so the burden on the economy is increasing. The problem is the system only has IOUs in the program. All the money has been spent already. I have long thought that Social Security is a much bigger drag on paychecks than income taxes. At least it is for me.

By the way, I am somewhat undecided about the death tax. And 1 million is not alot of money nowadays concerning value of farms and some businesses. I've seen people that were perhaps rich on paper but little else in terms of income or cash to operate. I think its wrong to have to sell property or break up a successful family business or operation just to fork it over to the government, especially when the people that died worked their entire lives to make what they did through extraordinary hard work, in part for their children, and perhaps the children helped them. Perhaps the threshold could be raised? I see arguments on both sides.

Go ahead with your examples. And what tax rate do you think is optimum or the highest rate that is healthy for the economy, at which point if raised, the actual tax revenues would drop? I've never seen a study or educated opinion as to what that number would be. Have you?

okie, You still don't understand the false message of small business and farms going bankrupt based on estate taxation - most will never owe money. Didn't you read Bill Gate's piece?

Doesn't it hinge on the threshold of 1 million or 2 million, above which it would affect the situation?

Yes. Most small farms and small business will not be hit with the estate tax, because of those thresholds, and simply because the value of the business is based on other than "current value."

Here are some of the assumptions:

Although every estate with more than $1 million in gross assets must file an estate tax return, the taxable amount is reduced by deductions for funeral expenses, administrative expenses, debts, charitable contributions, and transfers to one's spouse. As a result, less than half of all estates required to file a return are actually taxable. Gifts of up to $11,000 annually to an unlimited number of individuals are also exempt and do not count against the amount exempted from tax by the unified credit. Transfers in excess of the exempt amount are taxed at a graduated rate structure that begins at an effective rate of 41 percent, rising to a maximum rate of 50 percent on taxable estates above $2.5 million.

Okie,

Reagan cut taxes and had two years of declining reciepts. Then he raised them and had immediate rises in reciepts.

Clinton raised the tax rates even more, and had even more in receipts.

There's two examples right off of the top of me noggin. Did you know that the highest tax bracket used to be around 80-90%? And the people who were taxed were still super rich compared to everyone else. They didn't stop investing. They didn't give up on America and move somewhere else.




It's pretty high. At least twice the rate we have today. Because the super-wealthy are going to continue making money as long as they can, and they will be able to for a long time.

Cycloptichorn

Postwar Presidencies Ranked By Six Measures Of Economic Performance, Where 1 Is Best.
The simplest way to read this graph is to count the number of lowest numbers against the highest numbers for each president.

President Term Years In Office GDP Rank Real Disposable Personal Income Rank Employment Rank Unemployment Rank Inflation Rank Deficit Reduction Rank Average Rank
Bill Clinton 1993-2001...... 8 3 5 2 2 6 1 3.2
Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969...... 5.1 1 1 5 3 8 4 3.7
John F. Kennedy 1961-November 1963...... 2.9 2 2 8 1 5 6 4.0
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 ...... 8 5 4 3 4 2 8 4.3
Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 ...... 2.4 6 6 6 10 1 2 5.2
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981....... 4 4 8 1 5 10 7 5.8
Harry S. Truman...April 1945-1953...... 7.8 9 9 7 6 3 3 6.2
Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 ...... 5.6 7 3 4 8 9 9 6.7
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 ...... 8 8 7 9 9 7 5 7.5
George H.W. Bush 1989-1993...... 4 10 10 10 7 4 10 8.5
GDP: Gross Domestic Product. Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, White House Office of Management and Budget

Clinton with the average rank of 3.2 is the lowest and the best. George HW Bush with 8.5 is the highest and worst.

Okie- There are several problems here.

I know that Cicerione Imposter can read. I think sometimes he skips posts which are offered. I have given two posts. I have given their provenance. Yet, Cicerone Imposter continues to ignore what was written. He does not offer any evidence that the material below is wrong.

I will repeat:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cicerone Imposter. I am very much afraid that you may be unaware of the provisions of the AMT. I refer you to the Wikipedia Enyclopedia for information.

quote:

"The AMT does not correct for inflation owing to unplanned effects as time goes by. STARTING AROUND 2004, THE AMT BEGAN AFFECTING MIDDLE CLASS INCOMES...

The AMT disproportionately affects citizens of states with high taxation, since local and state taxes are considered deductables under current federal tax laws but not under the AMT. Because many of these states also voted Democratic in recent Presidential elections( eg, NY, California, New Jersey) and many of these states also have high per capita incomes but also a high cost of living, the AMT is sometimes referred to as the "Blue State Tax"

I realize you may have once known this, Mr. Cicerone Imposter and may have forgotten it. I am happy to have refreshed your memory!

You will note, Okie, the article says that starting around 2004, the AMT began affecting middle class income..Not in 1998 or 1990 or even in 1864, but 1990.

Then Cyclopitchorn offers data off the top of his noggin. I will not do so but I will offer data which is linked.

I am very much afraid that data from the top of noggins may not be very accurate.

http://.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1086/cfm


Please note, Okie, that I offer a link which someone can go to without any problem. Cicerone Imposter's data on the Presidents does not give a link but only gives notice that it can be found in the BLS figures. Anyone who knows how extensive the BLS figures are would immediately do what I am doing.

Mr. CI: Please give a link to your data comparing presidents. A link which gives the data!

Now, Okie, let us see if the data off the top of the noggin rings true---

See link above for total article. I will extract meaningful parts.

Try this: http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents_print.html

BR, Do you read what you post? You wrote:
The AMT disproportionately affects citizens of states with high taxation, since local and state taxes are considered deductables under current federal tax laws but not under the AMT.

What do you think I've been saying?

I wrote on page 20:
The AMT was established more than 30 years ago when $75,000 to $100,000 income families were considered wealthy. Not any more; that's the reason the AMT without adjusting for inflation hurts those middle class families.

The intent of the AMT should have expired many years ago. What this administration is doing is to "postpone" it until next year. Again; it should have expired many years ago, not postponed for one year.

Ah yes, the Bernard AMT bogie again. The AMT, which mostly everybody across the political specturn says needs reform. The AMT, which Republicans cynically put into a tax bill which offers most of the tax breaks for the wealthy, so Reps can claim it's a tax bill for all. The AMT, which once again with Republicans in control has not been fixed, but simply temporarily relieved, and as the NYT says:

"Lawmakers refuse to fix the problem once and for all because as long as the alternative tax lingers on the books, official budget estimates include huge amounts of revenue that it's suposed to raise. Of course, those outsized sums will never actually materialize because Congress keeps passing stopgap relief measures. But the revenue is counted anyway, allowing the administration and Congress to project far smaller budget deficits than will actually be the case.

After five years of duplicitous fiscal policy, Americans are catching on. And Republicams who see tax cuts as an automatic vote-getter may be in for a rude shock. Some two-thirds of Americans now say that the president's priorities, which clearly include ever more tax cuts, do not reflect their own." (NYTimes., 5/11/06, p. A30)

The flimflam is starting to wear very very thin.

You apparently did not read my post. It was clear. It said: Starting around 2004, Not 1998 or 1990--2004.

You apparently do not realize that the President must get the Senate and the House to vote for these items before they can be put in place.

Now, let us return to the link I gave.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/bg1086c11.gif

Please note the specificity of the link, Cicerone Imposter. It will not be difficult for you to check to see if I reported correctly. Your post on the comparisons of the presidents give no link..

You know--a link--http etc.

Now

If one links to Chart # 11--Revenues grew faster under Kennedy and Reagan-- on the first page of my link, one will find, contrary to the
unlinked claims of Mr. Cyclopitchorn, that the chart shows that

"Lower Tax Rates Work: Revenues grew faster Under Kennedy and Reagan"

and when one links to Chart # 12-Higher Tax Rates, Lower Revenue, it is clear that higher tax rates discourage investment and the formation of new jobs. Those new jobs under lowered tax rates will more than make up for the lowered tax rates.

Now, another link--a real link that one can access--

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200404300829.asp

The chart on the first page showes a GROWTH IN FEDERAL RECEIPTS AFTER THE TAX CUTS OF 2003, NOT A REDUCTION IN FEDERAL RECEIPTS.

I know the idea is counter-intuitive but if you think real real hard, you might get it.

Tax cuts encourage more investment which opens thousands of jobs. The people holding all of these new thousands of jobs then pay taxes on jobs which would not have been opened if the tax rate had been higher to discourage investment.

I tried this concept on my eight year old grandson. He understood it.

Username: You are respectfully referred to the links I gave. Please be so good as to show why they are in error.

As far as budgets go, I am sure that you are aware that there have been Billions in Pork added to the yearly budget by both Democrats and Republicans. Please do not attempt to purport that the "Budget" sails thorugh without considerable Congressional additions.

The vagueness of your quote, Username, cries out for more explanation.

Note: "Some two thirds of Americans now say that the President's priorities, which clearly include more tax cuts, do not reflect their own>"

Please, Mr.Username. The wording of the sentence clearly implies that the President's priorities include more tax cuts. What else do they include?

Iraq? Immigration?

I think you had better go back to the Artical from the Times to flesh out the sentence. By itself, it is ambiguous.

And I suggest you try to refute the Times, Bernard. And if you look at the recent polls, people think Bush is on the wrong track in just about everything.

You maintain that you do not trust people with an ideological ax to grind and never use them. If "heritage.com" is the Heritage Foundation and "national review.com" is clearly the National Review, then you certainly are using people with ideological axes. For a different viewpoint, try
http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm