Re: The Magic Bullet

> We have lowered the marginal rates on high incomes four times since  
> the inception of the income tax — in the 1920s, the 1960s, the  
> 1980s, and the 2000s. In each case, the result was a much more  
> prosperous national economy, lower unemployment, and higher tax  
> revenues for the government. If you do A (lower marginal rates) four  
> times, and four times, despite differing economic circumstances, B  
> (increased prosperity) happens, a rational person might conclude, at  
> least tentatively, that B is the result of A. Not liberals.

I don't think it is that easy of a case.  The economic growth of the  
past decade (the 2000s) has been largely not a result of lower tax  
rates, but of increasing debt.  It has been growth pulled forward by  
borrowing from the future.  Illusory wealth.  As for the other  
periods, I think there are also other explanations, especially with  
the 20's.  The 80's growth was largely a result of gov't deficits, and  
spending especially wrt defense.

That said, I'm not opposed to lower taxes on the wealthy (or anyone  
for that matter).  I think fairness in tax liability should be the  
order of the day.   That that said, I'm more than willing to see  
clawbacks and elimination of bonuses (even in the form of tax hikes)  
for those who received the benefit of government bailouts.  No sense  
in them double dipping into the taxpayer pockets.

regards,
-Lance
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot