Greenspan – Very Dangerous Possibilities of Extending Bush Tax Cuts

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGovernmentIsGood, since you are new, I recommend you read this post at your earliest convenience:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGubment: What makes a debate really fun is actually being in possession of the facts. For instance, the 91% tax rate you reference was actually during the Eisenhower Administration (the 1950s, NOT the 1940s), which happened to be a Republican administration (hence, the right). The economy during the 1940s was NOT one of America’s best; we were still recovering from the Great Depression and expending massive amounts on war funding for WWII.

Also, increasing taxes to the rates seen during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s would mean going from a present max of 36% to 39%, and, if you run the numbers, you’re not going to see a huge increase if that happens.

Lastly, Rich has done an excellent job of curbing the partisan bloviating on this site. Please stop with the mendacious Right versus Left nonsense. As my dad used to say, “If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, don’t act like one”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGubment: What makes a debate really fun is actually being in possession of the facts. For instance, the 91% tax rate you reference was actually during the Eisenhower Administration (the 1950s, NOT the 1940s), which happened to be a Republican administration (hence, the right). The economy during the 1940s was NOT one of America’s best; we were still recovering from the Great Depression and expending massive amounts on war funding for WWII.

Also, increasing taxes to the rates seen during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s would mean going from a present max of 36% to 39%, and, if you run the numbers, you’re not going to see a huge increase if that happens.

Lastly, Rich has done an excellent job of curbing the partisan bloviating on this site. Please stop with the mendacious Right versus Left nonsense. As my dad used to say, “If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, don’t act like one”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGubment: What makes a debate really fun is actually being in possession of the facts. For instance, the 91% tax rate you reference was actually during the Eisenhower Administration (the 1950s, NOT the 1940s), which happened to be a Republican administration (hence, the right). The economy during the 1940s was NOT one of America’s best; we were still recovering from the Great Depression and expending massive amounts on war funding for WWII.

Also, increasing taxes to the rates seen during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s would mean going from a present max of 36% to 39%, and, if you run the numbers, you’re not going to see a huge increase if that happens.

Lastly, Rich has done an excellent job of curbing the partisan bloviating on this site. Please stop with the mendacious Right versus Left nonsense. As my dad used to say, “If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, don’t act like one”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGubment: What makes a debate really fun is actually being in possession of the facts. For instance, the 91% tax rate you reference was actually during the Eisenhower Administration (the 1950s, NOT the 1940s), which happened to be a Republican administration (hence, the right). The economy during the 1940s was NOT one of America’s best; we were still recovering from the Great Depression and expending massive amounts on war funding for WWII.

Also, increasing taxes to the rates seen during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s would mean going from a present max of 36% to 39%, and, if you run the numbers, you’re not going to see a huge increase if that happens.

Lastly, Rich has done an excellent job of curbing the partisan bloviating on this site. Please stop with the mendacious Right versus Left nonsense. As my dad used to say, “If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, don’t act like one”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]It’s comical listening to the right extol the virtues of tax cuts. One of the best economies the U.S. ever had was back in the 1940’s when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Guess when another period of great economic growth occurred? Back in the 1990’s right before the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001. If those tax cuts are so beneficial to economic growth and job creation, then whey have we seen such horrid economic growth and job creation (not to mention wage stagnation) since then?

America is tired of the BS from the right. It’s time to raise taxes on the top income earners at least to the levels of the 1990’s. If we really want to see roaring economic growth, the top marginal rate needs to be somewhere close to 90%.[/quote]

BigGubment: What makes a debate really fun is actually being in possession of the facts. For instance, the 91% tax rate you reference was actually during the Eisenhower Administration (the 1950s, NOT the 1940s), which happened to be a Republican administration (hence, the right). The economy during the 1940s was NOT one of America’s best; we were still recovering from the Great Depression and expending massive amounts on war funding for WWII.

Also, increasing taxes to the rates seen during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s would mean going from a present max of 36% to 39%, and, if you run the numbers, you’re not going to see a huge increase if that happens.

Lastly, Rich has done an excellent job of curbing the partisan bloviating on this site. Please stop with the mendacious Right versus Left nonsense. As my dad used to say, “If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, don’t act like one”.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, on Allen’s reply… I couldn’t have said it better. I do not pretend to know if the Bush tax cuts were/are good for our economy. What I can see is that if they go away and BO doesn’t pass his version of tax cuts saving the cuts for the lower (below 225,000 for a couple I believe he ran on) echelon of tax payers it is going hurt us. I am by no means rich. The lower rung goes from 10% to 15%… that is a 5% increase for those making less than 35,000 (I think) a year??? Really? Those couples making up to 125,000 are going to pay 3% more??? They are not rich. I won’t even get into the marriage penalty, capital gains tax, etc… which will have a burden on everyone not just the so called rich. These games that politicians keep playing at election time have to stop. I believe that is why a lot of turnover is coming in both houses.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, on Allen’s reply… I couldn’t have said it better. I do not pretend to know if the Bush tax cuts were/are good for our economy. What I can see is that if they go away and BO doesn’t pass his version of tax cuts saving the cuts for the lower (below 225,000 for a couple I believe he ran on) echelon of tax payers it is going hurt us. I am by no means rich. The lower rung goes from 10% to 15%… that is a 5% increase for those making less than 35,000 (I think) a year??? Really? Those couples making up to 125,000 are going to pay 3% more??? They are not rich. I won’t even get into the marriage penalty, capital gains tax, etc… which will have a burden on everyone not just the so called rich. These games that politicians keep playing at election time have to stop. I believe that is why a lot of turnover is coming in both houses.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, on Allen’s reply… I couldn’t have said it better. I do not pretend to know if the Bush tax cuts were/are good for our economy. What I can see is that if they go away and BO doesn’t pass his version of tax cuts saving the cuts for the lower (below 225,000 for a couple I believe he ran on) echelon of tax payers it is going hurt us. I am by no means rich. The lower rung goes from 10% to 15%… that is a 5% increase for those making less than 35,000 (I think) a year??? Really? Those couples making up to 125,000 are going to pay 3% more??? They are not rich. I won’t even get into the marriage penalty, capital gains tax, etc… which will have a burden on everyone not just the so called rich. These games that politicians keep playing at election time have to stop. I believe that is why a lot of turnover is coming in both houses.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, on Allen’s reply… I couldn’t have said it better. I do not pretend to know if the Bush tax cuts were/are good for our economy. What I can see is that if they go away and BO doesn’t pass his version of tax cuts saving the cuts for the lower (below 225,000 for a couple I believe he ran on) echelon of tax payers it is going hurt us. I am by no means rich. The lower rung goes from 10% to 15%… that is a 5% increase for those making less than 35,000 (I think) a year??? Really? Those couples making up to 125,000 are going to pay 3% more??? They are not rich. I won’t even get into the marriage penalty, capital gains tax, etc… which will have a burden on everyone not just the so called rich. These games that politicians keep playing at election time have to stop. I believe that is why a lot of turnover is coming in both houses.

[Anonymous]

Bravo, on Allen’s reply… I couldn’t have said it better. I do not pretend to know if the Bush tax cuts were/are good for our economy. What I can see is that if they go away and BO doesn’t pass his version of tax cuts saving the cuts for the lower (below 225,000 for a couple I believe he ran on) echelon of tax payers it is going hurt us. I am by no means rich. The lower rung goes from 10% to 15%… that is a 5% increase for those making less than 35,000 (I think) a year??? Really? Those couples making up to 125,000 are going to pay 3% more??? They are not rich. I won’t even get into the marriage penalty, capital gains tax, etc… which will have a burden on everyone not just the so called rich. These games that politicians keep playing at election time have to stop. I believe that is why a lot of turnover is coming in both houses.

[Author]

Posts