Lower Taxes On The Rich Don’t Lead To Job Growth

[Qtec]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.

And there’s no cherry-picking here. Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent.</span> In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation. </div></div>

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/jobsvtaxeschart0628.jpg facts (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/28/256605/chart-lower-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/)

Q

[LWW]

That is perhaps the stupidest argument I have ever seen made on modern economics.

[Gayle in MD]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.

And there’s no cherry-picking here. Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent.</span> In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation. </div></div>

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/jobsvtaxeschart0628.jpg facts (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/28/256605/chart-lower-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/)

Q </div></div>

It's so obvious, tax cuts do not produce jobs, nor do thhey pay for themselves, in any other form, a proven fact, made very clear by the Bush Tax Cuts, which failed to produce the the number of jobs that Obama created by his second year in office AND during tough economic times, as America was trying to recover from eight years of Bush, draining us of our budget surplus, and clear path to debtless solvency, Bush spent eight years, spending and borrowing us into oblivion, with the help of his BLANK CHECK REPIGLICAN CONGRESS!

But, as we well know, facts are enemies of Repiglicans, which is why we never hear any facts from them!

That automatic RW fact filter is impenetrable!

G.

[LWW]

This thread is yet another example of how the party elite can lead the mob around by the nose, simply personally an issue and giving them some hate filled images ... it doesn't take much to get the mob to ignore the truth. They simply feel they must fit in with the rest of the mob.

This forum, again, has it's own little Orwellian "TWO MINUTES HATE" moment.