Thursday, May 01, 2008

Hillary Clinton: 70% Taxation Rate on Income High Earners

Just play this over and over again, Obama supporters. Hillary Clinton telling Bill O'Reilly first-hand.

Clinton wants to go back to the taxation of the 50s and 60s. Then, the tax rates on the "wealthy" was 70 percent, she says. She wants to get back to that period.

starts at 3:20

2 of 4 - Hillary Clinton on The O'Reilly Factor - 4/30/08

Oh my god, the woman even says:


Clinton: When President Kennedy said he was going to cut the top rate from 90 percent to 70 percent people stood up and cheered.

All she wants to do is get back to what we had in the 90s... the strongest fairest economy...

2 of 4 - Hillary Clinton on The O'Reilly Factor - 4/30/08

What a complete fool.

During both the Kennedy Administration and the Reagan Administration and we find, the Clinton Administration, the capital gains tax was cut, and cut, and that's why more revenues were brought into the government coffers.

But what does Hillary Clinton want to do now, raise the tax rate on the "wealthy," on incomes of above $200,000 wage earners.

Are workers nowadays earning $200,000 wealthy?

Clinton wants to raise the tax to higher than it is to some 70 percent. It's back to the 40s, 50s, and 60s for Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, that'll create more research jobs and jobs. Sure it will.

Net the Truth Online


August 13, 2003
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
WebMemo #327
There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons...

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.


...Some economists resist the notion that high tax rates are economically harmful, but it was President John F. Kennedy who eloquently warned of the perils of soak-the-rich tax policies some 30 years ago when he unveiled his own tax cut plan:

An economy hampered with restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs.

It is instructive to note that America has experienced three periods of very strong economic growth in modern times: the 1920s, the 1960s, and the 1980s. Each of those growth spurts coincided with reductions in marginal tax rates. In 1923, after the end of World War I, President Calvin Coolidge cut income tax rates. In 1964 the Kennedy tax cut lowered the top income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In 1981 Ronald Reagan cut tax rates 25 percent across the board, chopping the top tax rate from 70 to 50 percent (which was then lowered to 28 percent in 1986). What was the result?...

...After both the Kennedy and the Reagan tax rate cuts, federal revenues paid by the wealthiest Americans actually increased. After the Kennedy tax cuts in 1963, which lowered the top income tax rate from 90 to 70 percent, taxable income reported by the richest Americans rose by 40 percent. Between 1980 and 1990, the top income tax rate was chopped from 70 percent to 28 percent. Over that same period, the share of income taxes paid by the wealthy increased from 18 percent of the total in 1980 to 26 percent in 1990. In fact, real federal revenues increased by 24 percent in the seven years after the Reagan tax cuts (1982-89). They will have increased by only 20 percent in the seven years after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes (1990-97). That suggests that tax rates today are too high to expand the economy and to balance the budget. ...

Capital Gains Tax Cuts: Good for the Economy, Good for the Surplus, Good for America
NTU Issue Brief 128
by Eric V. Schlecht
Sep 18, 2001

At least when it came to campaign pledges, Bill Clinton told the truth
by Carl M. Cannon
February 2001 Atlantic Monthly
The Promise Keeper

After winning re-election in 1996, President Clinton held a press conference in the East Room. I asked him about a specific campaign promise he had made at the Chicago convention: to virtually eliminate one of America's most hated taxes, the capital-gains tax that people paid when they sold their homes. Did you mean it? I asked Clinton. Will it be in the budget you submit to Congress?

"The answer is yes, my homeowners' exemption, capital-gains exemption, is in the budget," the President replied. He added, "Everything I talked about at Chicago is in the budget."

And so it was. The capital-gains provision went into the budget, stayed there, and became law. And this is emblematic of the most underappreciated legacies of Clinton's presidency: his consistent efforts to follow through—and deliver—on his very many, and quite specific, campaign promises.

In 1992 Clinton vowed to cut the projected annual federal deficit in half during his first term, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, increase assistance to the working poor under the Earned Income Tax Credit, increase federal spending for worker retraining, greatly expand Head Start, support the North American Free Trade Agreement, beef up the Pell Grant program (which provides assistance to disadvantaged college students), and give all Americans access to "quality, affordable" health care. These things taken together, he promised, would jump-start the economy, which would respond by creating eight million new jobs. The attempt at health-care reform foundered, but in all other respects Clinton did everything he said he would, and the economy created nearly 11 million new jobs in his first term alone...

...This habit of delivering on his promises continued after the 1996 election. Besides granting capital-gains relief...

March 4, 2008
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom
by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1835
When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of higher taxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that higher taxes actually strengthened the economy.

The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Low taxes are still a key to a strong economy.

The Clinton Tax Defense

A growing body of literature and experience indicates that higher taxes are associated with a smaller economy.[1] It is generally axiomatic that the more one taxes something, the less there is of the item taxed.

There is surely no reluctance among proponents to argue that higher taxes on tobacco materially reduce tobacco consumption or that higher taxes on energy would appreciably reduce energy consumption. Yet, somehow, the argument persists that raising taxes on labor does not diminish the supply of labor or that raising taxes on capital does not appreciably reduce the amount of capital in the economy. In both cases, tax hikes weaken the economy and reduce the amount of income earned by American families.

The Clinton defense of higher taxes rests largely on a cursory review of the economic history of the 1990s. Whatever the theoretical debates, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: President Clinton raised taxes, yet the economy grew, and grew smartly in the latter half of the 1990s. Economists have occasionally been accused of seeing something work in practice and then proving that it cannot work in theory. However, this is not the case here.

History suggests that the economy performed reasonably well in the years immediately following the tax hike, but history is not causality, and history sometimes needs a more careful examination to tell its story faithfully. Following the tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut.

Contrasting the period immediately after the tax hike and the period immediately after the tax cut, the evidence strongly suggests that the tax hike likely slowed the economy as traditional theory suggests, and that it was the tax cut that gave the economy renewed vigor--and gave history the real 1990s boom. In other words, the Clinton defense of higher taxes does not hold up...

No comments: