tax cuts from a democrat?
Realist and liberals, do you realize that your democratic god, John F. Kennedy even lowered taxes?
"Of course, liberals don't deny that Kennedy wanted to cut taxes. But they say that Kennedy was only interested in expanding the budget deficit to give a boost to consumption -- pure Keynesian economics. "
ya melissa, you also have stagnant growth and a real intolerance problem aside from economics. but back to economics, id like to see a foreign doctor actually go there and become a doctor, instead of a taxi driver.
- 1 decade agoBest Answer
The Kennedy (and Johnson) tax cut was the largest tax cut in the history of the US, and heavily favored the rich. Remember the only way you can actually compare tax cuts is by percentages. There are too many variables to do a direct comparison. For instance, the time value of money is the main thing, the buying power of a dollar shrinks every year. $100 today buys a lot less than $100 in 1964. Another main consideration is that today's tax brackets do not match the tax brackets in 1964. This is also related to the time value of money in the sense that incomes have gone up as a result of inflation. The mean household income in 1964 was much lower than today, and the distribution of peoples' incomes has changed drastically.
The Kennedy tax cut constituted 8.8% of the Federal budget, which is still larger than all three of Bush's tax cuts which sum to 8.1%
Not only was Kennedy's tax cut the largest, it also drastically favored the rich. In order to fully see this fact, you have to normalize 1964 salaries and median incomes in today's values. For example, today, an adjusted gross income of $300,000 puts you in the top 1% of tax payers. An income of $300,000 in today's money is equivalent to an income of $50,000 in 1964. Again, this is because of the time value of money. If you take $50,000 and compoundly add the yearly rate of inflation, which is roughly 3% (thought, much higher in the late 1970s), for each year from 1965 until 2006, this summation yields ~ $300,000. Now, with that said, in 1964 an income of $50,000 a year would place you in the upper .2% of income--that is the upper two tenths of one percent. An income of $25,000 in 1964 was in the upper 1% of tax payers; and people at that level received the lion's share of Kennedy's tax cut, 14% of the total tax cut amount. The top one percent got 14% of the tax cut? That doesn't sound very working class friendly to me!
Just to answer Russ's question, Kennedy lowered the top income tax bracket from 91% to 70% (Kennedy wanted it lowered to 65%, but Congress only approved 70%). Bush's tax cut lowered the top income tax bracket from 39.6% to 33%. Kennedy's tax cut lowered the top rate by 23%, while Bush's plan only lowered it by 17%.
The other important thing to take into consideration is when, during each year, does Tax Freedom Day occur. Tax Freedom Day is day after the number of work days the average worker must work in order to pay his/her taxes. And it is funny that during the 1990s, once Clinton took office, Tax Freedom Day occurred later and later during the year, each consecutive year. Pretty funny, since Clinton's tax hike was suppose to only effected the "rich," and not the working man.
Please review the following links to compare the various tax cuts, read about the Kennedy tax cut, and see a chart of when Tax Freedom Day has occurred each year since 1980, respectively.
Kreevich, how is lowering income taxes a Supply side cut? I assume you are referring to Keynesian economic theory when you use Supply side and Demand side? Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush ALL cut income taxes, which is the Demand side.
I agree with you that society has to pay for its government in the form of taxes. But I doubt most Americans are happy with the size of government today, and I have to disagree with you about finding enough spending to cut to lower taxes. Start removing all of the useless Government departments that came into existence during the 20th Century, and the tax rate could be reduced even lower!
If the Federal Government had not violated the 10 Amendment in the first place, we would not have the bloated government structure we have today!
Don, you could not be more wrong, the National Debt has not be zero for over 60 years. There is a huge difference between having a balanced budget and no national debt. If you charge $10,000 in credit card debt to pay bills. Then start paying your bills in full each month without using your credit card, does your old credit card debt magically disappear?
The budget was balanced before Bush took office, but don't forget the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress during the late 90s when the balanced budget was passed, and Congress has to approve the budget so the Republicans should get credit for that.Source(s): http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/mar1901.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-F...
- rollo_tomassi423Lv 61 decade ago
There is not much disagreement among economists that running a deficit will stimulate the economy. The simplest way to do that is by cutting taxes, although many would argue that it is actually more effective to increase government spending on public works. Bush has both massively increased government spending, and cut taxes, mostly on the wealthy, at the same time. The question is when is it prudent to run a deficit, and how large a deficit should we run and for how long. This is a question that both Democrats and Republicans are asking.
Also, until Reagan came along, it was generally Democrats who advocated deficit spending during recessions, and Republicans who preached the virtues of a balanced budget. It is interesting that Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility and Republicans are the party that says we should not worried about perpetual deficit spending.
At some point, however, you max out your credit card. That will happen to the US eventually.
- MargaretLv 44 years ago
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. In the absence of the tax cuts, the deficit picture over the coming decade would look very different. Without the tax cuts, the deficit would be under $100 billion in most years. With the tax cuts, the deficit is projected to grow to more than $675 billion by the end of the decade.
- kreevichLv 51 decade ago
Kennedy's tax cut was DEMAND side. Bush's was SUPPLY side. Supply Side Economics made for gargantuan deficits during the Reagan Administration, so why did they think they'd get different results the second time?
We as a society have decided on the amount of government we want. This costs money. We need to pay for it rather than pass debt on to future generations. This means we ned to raise taxes. We cannot find enough spending to cut, not even if we stop the stupid Iraq fiasco.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
opposed war with Cuba or in Viet Nam
was against abortion
opposed a welfare state
That's why the liberals murdered him , to get Johnson in .
Bobby Kennedy got too close to the truth and he was killed .
Foster and Brown , Clinton Administration , knew too much , ended up dead .
Is there a pattern here ?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I wish Americans would realize that lowering taxes is not the answer. Here in Canada, we pay higher taxes, but we also get a wealth of services, such as free health care and education. There are so many Americans that go without health care because they can't afford it, or if they do get the health care they need, they're impossibly in debt, and I find that to be really sad.
- 1 decade ago
I love it Melissa M from another country tell it like it is!! The people here are ignorant. I would vote on higher taxes anyday if it meant everyone getting health care and other benefits. Then again Repubs don't think of others.
- PeyLv 71 decade ago
GW has raised taxes, deficits, and gas prices more than any other president in history. The war in Iraq was not against terrorist. It had two purposes ... get the president reelected and secure oil supply so the oil people could have a large income for the next "25 years of addiction to oil."
- Starla_CLv 71 decade ago
Why are you even bringing up JFK. That's HISTORY remember? What about our future?
WE WON'T HAVE ONE IF THE DEMOCRATS TAKE POWER!
TS you are young and silly. The Democrats' agenda is to tax the crap out of everyone and we will all suffer for it. Please educate yourself of the issues before casting a vote.
- Anarchy99Lv 71 decade ago
You seem to be pretty knowledgable on the subject
WHAT WAS THE TOP TAX BRACKET WHEN JFK REDUCED TAXES? WHAT DID HE REDUCE IT TOO?