Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.
|
The 1920's, we had a rather small Gov - todays standard, cutting the taxes to the point that the poor reached, I don't think is possible. Now if we made some changes in Gov size, then yes.
If you look at the numbers, you'll see that the tax rate for the poor slowly declined over the period to almost nothing. While the rich did get a tax cut too, it increased over the period to double what it is today. This explains why the rich paid most of the taxes. But it also tells us, that we should tax the lower incomes far less than the rich get taxed, percentage wise.
We've already gone through the economic boom... the peak has happened. If you want to follow in the foot steps of what you posted, you would agreeing with is what Obama has suggested we do. Cut the tax rate for the lower income and increase it for the higher income. Another 8% cut in the tax rate for top income earners will do exactly what the last tax cut did, increase the deficit. We're past that point.
Now if they slash the capital gains tax for corps on money brought into the Country for local investing/growth that would spark huge growth. But to get to that point, we need to make it so corps can easily abuse the system they were setup to work within. Which is the game plan.