circa 1956

Quote :

"Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America." The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices. The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees. In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people. Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions. Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our "

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838#ixzz1JKEIGeVa

Too bad the the political pendulum that swings from the right to left is sliding down a rightward zip line.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason : speeeelllng]

4/12/2011 12:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Too bad the the political pendulum that swings from the right to left is sliding down a rightward zip line."

I'd warn against viewing ideology as a simple "left versus right" paradigm. The media and pundits tell us that everyone fits squarely on one side or the other, but probably the more important ideological indicator is authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

4/12/2011 12:17:58 PM

I'll point out that it's a lot easier to embrace social reform when the country is making money hand over fist, and it's a lot easier to make money hand over fist when the rest of the world just got done bombing itself to shit and has to kiss your ass.

4/13/2011 4:00:30 PM

Actually we can attribute it to the Top Marginal Tax Rate being 89% in 1954.

4/13/2011 6:25:42 PM

Let's see any evidence of that at all, hoss.

Actually, before you get into evidence, explain to me how a high top marginal tax rate relates to union membership.

4/13/2011 8:20:13 PM

Quote :

"Yesterday, I noted that the GOP's budget cut promises from $100 billion to $61 billion and then resulted in a deal party leaders claimed cut $38 billion but really cut just $14 billion. I ended the post with a question: "Any bets on how many days before the cuts disappear entirely?" I didn't intend the question to be taken literally. Perhaps I should have: The Congressional Budget Office now says the deal will reduce the budget deficit by just $353 million. "

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/13/billion-dollar-budget-cuts-we

4/13/2011 11:53:27 PM

^^You prove your point first, then I'll prove mine.

4/14/2011 1:26:49 AM

What point? That when you have a lot of money you can afford to do more things or that right after WWII this country was making a lot of money?

4/14/2011 5:36:20 PM

Quote :

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government. In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues. It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates. Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate. A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment. Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in [1980] has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive. Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment. A bill [should] be presented to the Congress for action [this] year. It [should] include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It [should] include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. The administration [should] pledge itself to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ... Next year's tax bill [would] reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital ... I am confident that the enactment of the right bill [this] year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut."

That from the guy who relieved Eisenhower.

You know, this guy:

4/14/2011 6:39:18 PM

^

Quote :

"we can attribute it to the Top Marginal Tax Rate being 89%"

However, ever since the '70s, taxes have been way on the left side of what would later be called the Laffer Curve, so if JFK were alive today he would not continue to dogmatically say that tax cuts would reduce the deficit.

4/14/2011 9:25:13 PM

No legitimate politicians actually believe that at current rates, tax cuts will result in increased revenues. Increased growth, yes, but not increased revenues.

Even Paul Ryan's plan, although counting on the benefits of economic growth, aims for his tax cuts to be revenue-neutral by closing loopholes and levying an 8.5% VAT.

On the other hand, you still have idiots like Pryderi on the left who think that we can go back to the days of 70%+ marginal tax rates without derailing the economy. Sorry, but that shit won't work anymore. We saw the results when the rest of the world finally rebuilt from WWII, with negative growth and stagflation in the 70's. Since neoliberalism has taken root, trade barriers have been struck down and developing nations have proven very adept at industrializing in response to emerging markets, there is simply no going back to those days. We need a low corporate tax rate in order for companies to compete on the international stage, and we need a relatively low marginal tax rate in order to foster continued investment and innovation.

Before the great recession, our economy sputtered along via a series of credit-driven bubbles until it all came crashing down. Now we are continuing to try to buy and spend our way back to prosperity, replacing private creditors with the Fed. This is living on borrowed time. There are structural problems with the economy that cannot be fixed with stimulus packages and unemployment benefits. We have to go back to providing goods and services that the rest of the world needs, and the only legitimate way to do that is through investment, innovation, and a business-friendly regulatory environment.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Reason : 2]

4/14/2011 9:39:49 PM

Quote :

"No legitimate politicians actually believe that at current rates, tax cuts will result in increased revenues. Increased growth, yes, but not increased revenues."

This Just In: Most of GOP Illegitimate

news at 11

4/14/2011 9:47:50 PM

Proof plz.

If any current GOP'er in a leadership position said that tax cuts will result in higher revenues, I'd love to see it.

4/14/2011 9:54:29 PM

george w bush himself claimed that

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 9:43 PM. Reason : although i suppose you'd say that doesn't count as current]

4/27/2011 9:31:59 PM

4/28/2011 12:01:33 AM

There's very little correlation in that graph. Seems like the income of the top 1% increased with little or no regard to the top marginal tax rate.

Superimpose a line representing "Share of Wealth controlled by the top 1%", and then you see some real correlation.

4/28/2011 9:25:34 AM

If that is right, then it would mean is that while top marginal tax rates have fallen, the effective tax rate has remained about the same.

However, according to the NY Times, the top 1% share of income has risen from 15% to 22% over that same time period, while the top 1% share income taxes paid rose from 17% to 40%. Therefore, I believe while the top marginal rate was lowered, the rich wound up paying an even higher effective tax rate while the other 99% of tax payers paid less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ,.]

4/28/2011 11:21:43 AM

^^^ That is just about the most disingenuous graph I've seen in a very long time; implying that it's the lower tax rates that caused a higher share of overall taxes at the high end ... Plot income distribution and you will find the real reason why the upper percentiles pay a bigger share of taxes - they have a increasingly bigger share of the money ... (and the declining tax rates don't hurt in that regard).

This graph shows ratios between the upper 5% and the middle 50%. It also shows ratios between the lower 5% and the middle 50%. There are plenty of other graphs showing the same thing. Indeed, the fact of an ever increasing income gap does not seem to be in dispute.



Ok, one more:



[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/28/2011 11:40:05 AM

Quote :

"they have a increasingly bigger share of the money ... (and the declining tax rates don't hurt in that regard)"

Quite right: Lower tax rates have caused the rich to finally declare income they used to hide, thus driving up the statistically reported gap in income, and causing even more taxes to be paid by the top 1% than they would have under the old tax regime.

4/28/2011 12:06:44 PM

Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just flapping your gums ... (fingers?) ....

P.S. - Did you even read that article you referenced? ... Although it was published in 2007, it does nothing but make the case for an ever increasing income disparity:

Quote :

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows. The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression."

You just seem to pull this stuff out of thin air ... based on your preconceived notions.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 1:44 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/28/2011 1:27:49 PM

Quote :

"If that is right, then it would mean is that while top marginal tax rates have fallen, the effective tax rate has remained about the same. "

No it doesn't.

Quote :

"However, according to the NY Times, the top 1% share of income has risen from 15% to 22% over that same time period, while the top 1% share income taxes paid rose from 17% to 40%. "

I don't see anything in your linked article that says that. However, it DOES say that the average income of the top 1% rose 14% in 2005 alone, while the income for the bottom 90% fell. Thus, the rich got richer faster than the tax rates fell. That is why that graph is misleading.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM. Reason : sloppy]

4/28/2011 2:04:06 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just flapping your gums ... (fingers?)"

There is evidence, just incomplete. It is a fact that as tax rates on individuals have fallen, wholly owned businesses have shifted to file as individuals where-as before the businesses filed as corporations at the lower corporate tax rate. In-so-far as any of these businesses are owned by the top 1%, these businesses will now appear as their owners taxable income where-as before they did not. This clearly cannot explain the entire shift, but it seems quite logical that others have done the same, by reorganizing their affairs in response to lower tax rates. It is also reasonable to believe the top 1% have decided to work more now than they did under higher tax rates.

That is what I believed happened. Regretfully, from what I understand of the world it is impossible to prove either way.

4/28/2011 3:01:18 PM

Quote :

""Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer." - Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%. "

5/4/2011 11:53:57 PM

As mike munger says, "DAFT: Deficits Are Future Taxes"

5/5/2011 11:29:21 AM

Wow, seriously? Are you actually denying that the rich's share of wealth is not growing, that they're just declaring income that they formerly hid from the high taxes? Really?? How could you even prove OR disprove this conjecture?

Is this the mental gymnastics one has to go through to not see it for the plain and simple: We're getting fleeced more every day and we have been since the 70's when they started dropping tax rates for the rich.


[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 10:40:25 AM

Quote :

"How could you even prove OR disprove this conjecture?"

Like I said, I can't prove it, the statistics do not exist. Of course, they don't exist for you either, so you can't disprove it. We also cannot demonstrate how much the divorce rate or the rise of women in the work force has driven the growth of inequality.

However, what statistics we do have show we are not alone:


But I am curious about your gymnastics: How do you think lowering tax rates on the rich increases their share of income? Lower tax rates should only decrease the amount they pay to uncle sam, not increase the amount they get paid.

5/6/2011 4:39:17 PM