Kansas’ experiment with tax cutting failed spectacularly — on its own terms

[DreamerUSA]

Well thats what happens when you make promises based off a social science lol. How about we just let people keep their money because well its theirs. Both sides need to stop making promises that economics simply can't guarantee. The myth that any policy can provide X amount of jobs or growth is just that, a myth. An economy is far to complicated for some tax cut or increase to have a specific numerical effect. Economics at best give you approximations.

[Motorcity Cobra]

Moral of the story. The only thing that trickles down is poverty. You can't cut taxes and expect the same level of services.

[1bad65]

How about we just let people keep their money because well its theirs.

Bingo!

Should be no more complex than that.

But we've allowed politicians to take alot of our money, then we fight each other over how they get to spend it.

[1bad65]

Moral of the story. The only thing that trickles down is poverty. You can't cut taxes and expect the same level of services.

The 1980s disagrees.

Again guys, no such term in the field of Economics as "trickle down".

It's a political talking point that grubers fall for and mindlessly repeat. When one uses it, it only proves they are ignorant of the most basic of Economics.

[Hype job]

The 1980s disagrees.

Again guys, no such term in the field of Economics as "trickle down".

It's a political talking point that grubers fall for and mindlessly repeat. When one uses it, it only proves they are ignorant of the most basic of Economics.

50s, 60s and 70s were better for job growth, economic growth and incomes, and they had higher taxes.

[1bad65]

50s, 60s and 70s were better for job growth, economic growth and incomes, and they had higher taxes.

"GDP per capita"

Nope.

I count the nations' GDP as whole. That's cherry-picking. Expected when anyone tries to discount the massive growth that was the 1980s.

Population grows over time, so any per capita GDP data puts later years behind the 8 ball.

Out of curiosity, how'd your 'per capita' source compare the 1980s to decades AFTER it?

[1bad65]

50s, 60s and 70s were better for job growth, economic growth and incomes, and they had higher taxes.

Can you tell me, in your own words, how higher taxes creates higher economic growth, private sector wages, etc?

And remember, higher taxes by definition mean the Gov't is taking more money from everyone working and paying taxes.....

[Hype job]

"GDP per capita"

Nope.

I count the nations' GDP as whole. That's cherry-picking. Expected when anyone tries to discount the massive growth that was the 1980s.

Population grows over time, so any per capita GDP data puts later years behind the 8 ball.

Out of curiosity, how'd your 'per capita' source compare the 1980s to decades AFTER it?

GDP per capita is a much better estimation of living standards than GDP on the whole.

[Hype job]

Can you tell me, in your own words, how higher taxes creates higher economic growth, private sector wages, etc?

And remember, higher taxes by definition mean the Gov't is taking more money from everyone working and paying taxes.....

Depends on what it's spent on. If it's invested in R&D, infrastructure and education the effects will likely reverberate to the wider economy. Businesses benefit from well maintained roads and bridges, an educated populace and research and development.

[1bad65]

GDP per capita is a much better estimation of living standards than GDP on the whole.

How so?

And do you agree with my assessment in relation to a growing population?

I'm also seeing you didn't compare the 80s to LATER decades as I asked.....