Big_Easy
AH enthusiast
And you don't see any difference between lowering the top tax rate from 90% to 70%, and increasing it from 23.8% to 39.6%? Weren't you all the ones demanding that I take context into account more?The problem is, that sort of wealth can be maintained an grown in ways other than income. The successful used all sorts of vehicles that resulted in deadweight economic loss. Instead of a windfall, the economy experiences stagnation. The first postwar president who fully grasped that economic reality was JFK (Now what party was he?) His proposed tax cuts, which were dramatic at the time, were actually passed and signed into law by Johnson (another dem?) immediately following his death. The GDP blossomed significantly from 64 thru 66 and unemployment fell 5.2% in 64 to 3.5 by the end of 68.
You also seem to have missed my post where I acknowledged that taxing the top 1% at a 75% rate would lead to capital flight. It's also curious that in order to support your arguments that you guys are citing examples from the 1960s, or even the 1940s. Did the GDP also "blossom" during the Clinton administration? After taxes were raised to 39.6%? I seem to remember Republican Congressman on the house floor debating that bill claiming it would be "the end of the US economic miracle," and how we "will return to the dark days of economic stagnation and high inflation like during the Carter admin!" I think you can still find those C-SPAN videos on the internet.
And what happened then? The largest, longest economic expansion in the history of the republic.
Last edited:
