Show of HandsShow of Hands

polster2 November 7th, 2017 11:04am

Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90% and the economy grew faster than under Bush, when the top tax rate was 35%. Growth was also faster under Clinton than it was Reagan, despite Clinton passing a tax hike. Does supply-side economics work?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/07/17 11:35 am

The rich end up paying more in taxes at lower rates. JFK and Reagan both cut taxes tremendously and the rich ended under paying a lot more in actual dollars. Also Clinton lowered the capital gains tax which spurred a huge wave of private investment.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 8:48 am

Polster ... shame on you! This is yet another pathetic attempt to mislead! You know that the loopholes during the Eisenhower era taxes meant that nearly no one paid the 90% rate.

But please, keep your distractions going. We’ve got the government and will ensure that it is far more accountable Han it was during the dark Obama years.

Reply
polster2 US
11/07/17 9:01 am

Even with the loopholes, the rich were still paying a much higher rate under Eisenhower than they did under Bush and Obama.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 11:37 am

Polster ... what we need is a far tax, which is a flat tax. The current oppressive regressive tax hurts the country by allowing ugly progressive politicians to create classes divided in their selfish attempts to remain in power.

polster2 US
11/07/17 11:41 am

Yeah, how dare the government deny the rich their ninth Ferrari!

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 11:44 am

Polster ... you’re FINALLY seeing the truth! How dare the government think they can spend our money better than we can, or even worse how dare the government have the ridiculous notion that they have the right to determine what is too much for us!

You’ve finally accurately described the evil that is a bloated government! I’m so proud of you that you are opening your eyes!!!

polster2 US
11/07/17 11:46 am

Once again you fail to understand sarcasm.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 11:47 am

Polster ... methinks it is you who can not see clearly!

polster2 US
11/07/17 11:48 am

Why is that? Because you hate facts?

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 5:47 am

It sure worked under Reagan. No one can deny that.

Reply
polster2 US
11/07/17 6:02 am

Clinton had faster economic growth after raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:04 am

What about under Carter compared to Reagan?

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:05 am

We all know that Clinton was the beneficiary of the Reagan economy.

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:06 am

Except that Bush was the president before Clinton, not Reagan, dumbass.

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:08 am

Carter had a lower average annual real GDP growth than Reagan did, but HW Bush’s was lower than both of theirs, and George W. Bush’s was lower still.

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:11 am

He still benefited from Reagan’s policies. Those policies lifted us out of the massive stagnation and inflation of the Carter years.

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:13 am

And HW Bush, Reagan’s own running mate, called trickle-down economics “voodoo economics.” The stagflation of the late 70s and early 80s was actually halted by contractionary monetary policy at the Fed; Reagan had nothing to do with it.

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:15 am

And if Clinton “benefited from Reagan’s policies,” then why didn’t George HW Bush benefit from those policies as well, since he was president between Reagan and Clinton?

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:27 am

They did. In fact, it was the prosperity brought on these Republican policies that made it possible for Clinton to raise taxes without killing the economy.

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:32 am

So why did HW Bush have lower economic growth than Clinton did?

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 7:01 am

As I said Clinton benefited from Bush’s policies. Aren’t you one of the people saying that the economic boost we are now experiencing is due to Obama, not Trump? Why are you making a different argument in this case?

polster2 US
11/07/17 7:03 am

You made the argument that Clinton benefited from Reagan’s policies, not Bush’s.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 8:50 am

Suppressed ... you’re right, for once! It is impossible to use logic when discussing most any topic with Polster!

polster2 US
11/07/17 9:00 am

Think...Why don’t you explain how my facts are wrong?

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/07/17 11:37 am

Polster. Clinton had a good economy because he cut capital gains tax and signed off on the welfare reform act passed by the republicans which brought million into the workforce and out of poverty.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
11/07/17 5:41 am

That's all misleading information, so like a usual Polster poll.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 8:51 am

Lift ... you nailed it!

chinito Florida
11/07/17 4:30 am

I'm curious, how fast did the economy grow under Obama?

Reply
polster2 US
11/07/17 4:52 am

How is that relevant to the discussion?

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 5:48 am

Why are you afraid to answer the question, polster?

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:01 am

I’m not afraid to answer it. It’s an irrelevant question.

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:03 am

Irrelevant because it wouldn’t support your point!

polster2 US
11/07/17 6:04 am

No, irrelevant because focusing on one president and ignoring 30 years’ worth of data is stupid and counterproductive.

Ebola1 Florida
11/07/17 6:05 am

Then why are you doing it?

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 8:52 am

Ebola ... keep up the good fight! Polster is immune to the truth.

polster2 US
11/07/17 9:33 am

Think...I’ve actually done nothing but state facts in this poll.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 9:46 am

Polster ... devious omission of relevant facts makes you dishonest.

polster2 US
11/07/17 10:12 am

Think...What relevant facts did I omit?

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 10:19 am

Polster ... I shared those omissions in the other thread at the current top of this silly misleading poll.

polster2 US
11/07/17 10:22 am

And I shared with you that even when you factor in all the loopholes under Eisenhower, the wealthy were still giving a greater percentage of their money to Uncle Sam than they did under Bush and under Obama.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 10:26 am

Polster ... you were wrong then and now you appear deluded.

polster2 US
11/07/17 10:28 am

Nope, everything I’ve stated is factual. You can look it up on the internet for yourself.

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 11:39 am

Polster ... when you present only a part of the fact in an attempt to deceive it is as if you are lying.

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/07/17 11:39 am

Polster also didn’t mention the largest tax increase was passed just before the Great Depression.

polster2 US
11/07/17 11:43 am

What relevant facts did I leave out? The rich were giving a greater percentage of their income to the US Government under Eisenhower than they were under Bush and Obama. Deal with it!

Think Lovin Life
11/07/17 11:49 am

T4Y ... absolutely correct!

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/07/17 12:41 pm

When they are allowed to keep their money they can make it grow and end up paying more in taxes. Isn’t that what you want?