I am fully aware this is an exercise in futility, since supply-side economics is not so much an economic system as it is a belief system. Belief systems are not bothered by conflicting facts.
Their only requirement is that you believe.
In the past 35 years or so, Supply-Side economics has become more an economic religion than an actual economic model. So, I am fully prepared for the onslaught of arguments based on facts in absentia.
I have been told in no uncertain terms "taxing the rich at a different rate than the rest is THEFT, pure and simple".
This statement does not hold up under even a simpletons scrutiny.
The prior statement prompted the studies that followed and the article you're reading. The statement "felt" wrong, yet I was not in a position to debate its merits without further fact gathering, thinking and basic procrastination.
Rupert Murdoch and I are drag racing. The po-po pulls us over and issue identical $500 speeding tickets.
The billionaire is not adversely effected. I, however, am adversely effected. The actual cost and effect is not equal. A billionaire has no way of knowing what $500 means, therefore, Rupert goes on drag racing and I do not.
The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans:
1947-1964 = 91%.
1964-1973 = 70%
1981-1986 = 50%
1986-1993 = 28%
Republican President George Bush raised taxes on the richest Americans a scant 3%, to 31%. Supply-siders wailed as though their skin was being peeled from their bodies.
Earlier, as Vice President, George Bush famously called supply-side economics "voodoo economics". Which does serve to partially explain why, as President, he was willing to go against his party's accepted doctrine and raise taxes.
Following the tax hike the economy blossomed and the deficit, of which it was said "would take generations to pay off" melted away in 8 years under Clinton.
In no small part due to the burgeoning bubble economy we had embarked on (which we now look back with either fond memories or as rubble from which we must rebuild).
The tax decreases do not coincide with periods of blissful prosperity. Therefore we can glean from this NO direct correlation to tax breaks for the rich, on their own, being the savior supply-siders claim it to be.
The pure supply-sider believes tax cuts are the holy grail. Specifically, tax cuts for the wealthy "job creators". Believing that if the rich get richer, they'll create jobs.
This has not proven to be an absolute truth, as supply-siders would have us believe.
This does not make them absolutely wrong, it makes them absolutely not absolutely right.
I contend the answer to our economic crisis can be found in the middle of two polemically opposed economic ideologies.
We need to prioritize spending and cut where we deem needed. We also need to raise revenue, either through taxes or growing the economy. Which may also require spending money now, to invest in our future.
*****
In the next installment we'll explore the creators of Supply Side Economics.
I was surprised to learn none of them was an economist.
*****
Bonus fun:
Perception: The pen is mightier than the sword.
If you lump the perpetrators of the grandest ponzi scheme in Earth's history to "job creators" this shines a positive light on the crooks. Hell, organized crime is a "job creator".
These people are complicit in the current unemployment debacle. Further, many of their capitalist companies would not exist were it not for the people bailing their asses out (the bailouts were, by definition, socialist)
My use of "them" shows I do not agree with "them".
When I use "we" or "us" there is an implied agreement. Most of the time I will be siding with the vast majority of Americans and use "we". As in, "we the people of the United States".
Words swayed public opinion for our own health. The creation of "death panels" by Rupert Murdoch's crew, to replace "measured healthcare" was evil genius, if you want to protect the big healthcare company's profits.
When Rupert's crew replaced "public option" with "government run healthcare" and equated it with socialism. The public went form 60% pro to 60% against Obama's healthcare proposal.
Words, perceptions, having the pulpit with which to repeat said words... that's power.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kemstone
Les Braunstein
LadyMiko
Yablonowitz
Safe_Bet's Amy
Stacey Youdin
Salon.com
Comments
The right has certainly discovered the value of words. I can only conclude that most people are simpletons.
yes, it's an illness, or at least a habit of picking at scabs. but in my case a search for new pastimes and a reliance on red wine for contentment have not succeeded in a cure.
and watching the uppers shoot themselves in the foot while dancing on the face of the lowers is endlessly amusing.
I didn't mean to suppose taking Rupert's money and power away would help me and you financially. I simply used Rupert as a human who misused his power and would not give a crud about a $500 speeding ticket.
However, in the framework you propose, we might have all benefited from Rupert NOT having the wealth and power he abused, possibly illegally.
He seemed the perfect foil, a person choosing to wield his power for the betterment of the few, even if he had to break a few laws to do it. What does he care about laws for the common man?
In the same way, wealth is created by societies that are rich in education, infrastructure, heath, and human compassion. Those individuals fortunate enough to harvest wealth from a society should know, or need to be told, that they have an obligation to help with the continuation of this society as an abundant source of wealth. If not, all they leave behind, like the inept farmer, will be an arid, lifeless desert.