View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 1st, 2014, 5:47 am



Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12153
Post Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
Factcheck.org wrote:
Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
Posted on April 17, 2014

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul claimed that 20 million jobs were created after President Ronald Reagan’s dramatic tax cuts in the 1980s, and that this was the “last time” such job growth took place. Paul is wrong on both counts.
The fact is that the economy added just over 16.1 million jobs under the tax-cutting Reagan, but it added nearly 22.9 million under Democratic President Bill Clinton, who raised taxes.

Supply-side Myth
Paul’s misinformed recitation of economic history came during an April 12 “Freedom Summit” gathering of 2016 Republican presidential prospects in Manchester, N.H. It was a straightforward expression of the supply-side myth that tax cuts produce more revenue rather than less:
Quote:
Paul, April 12: When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan. What did Ronald Reagan do? Did he come forward and say: “Oh, let’s just cut taxes for low-income people?” No, he said forthrightly let’s cut everyone’s taxes. He did dramatically. The top rate — that’s what rich people pay — was 70 percent, he lowered it to 50 percent. Then he lowered it again to 28 percent, and 20 million jobs were created. More revenue came in in fact. When you cut rates people work harder, they make more money, more revenue comes in.
Paul was right about the size of Reagan’s dramatic cuts in the federal income tax rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the top rate was 70 percent of income exceeding $108,300 for singles and $215,400 for couples filing jointly, and during his final year in office, the top rate was just 28 percent on income exceeding $17,850 for singles and $29,750 for couples filing together.

And it’s also true that those tax cuts were accompanied by years of prosperity. The 16.1 million jobs added during his eight years in office came despite a 16-month recession that began early in his first term, before the tax cuts enacted in 1981 began to take effect. But even ignoring the jobs lost during the early part of his time in office, the economy gained only 18.4 million jobs from the low point in December 1982 to the end of his presidency. That’s an enviable number, but it’s still well short of Paul’s “20 million” claim.

And it’s not the “last time” such gains were made, either. Clinton took office in 1993 during a weak recovery from an eight-month recession that plagued the middle of Republican George H.W. Bush’s term.

To reduce the huge federal deficits — records for the time — that he had inherited from Reagan and Bush, Clinton pushed through a tax increase (and some spending cuts) in 1993. Afterward, the deficits shrank, the recovery accelerated, and it continued until the end of his presidency, becoming what is still the longest sustained economic boom in the nation’s history.

During Clinton’s eight years, the economy added far more jobs than were added under Reagan, or even the combined total under both Reagan and the elder Bush, for that matter. Clinton’s total of 22.9 million in eight years easily exceeds the 18.8 million added in the 12 Reagan-Bush years. (For a discussion of all the factors involved, see our Dec. 7, 2007, Ask FactCheck item, “Clinton and Economic Growth in the ’90s.”)

Tax Cuts = More Revenue?
Another dubious claim by Paul is that “more revenue came in” after Reagan cut taxes. As we’ve often noted, when politicians say “more” or “less,” it’s always a good idea to ask, “compared with what?”

The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.

Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines.

Later, the government did see impressive increases in revenue — 11 percent in FY 1984 and 10.1 percent in FY 1985, for example. But would those increases have been even greater had rates not been reduced, or been cut less? It’s not possible to re-run history, so nobody can say for sure.

At the time the 1981 act was passed, however, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation projected an average revenue loss of more than $111 billion per year over the first four years the cuts were in effect — compared with what was projected under the old rates. That’s noted in a document we’ve cited before, “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills,” compiled by a career tax analyst in the Treasury Department.

Economists generally agree that lower taxes stimulate economic activity. But contrary to what Rand claims, they say tax cuts just don’t produce enough revenue to pay for themselves, let alone bring in increased revenue. For more on that, see our Jan. 16, 2008, item, “The Impact of Tax Cuts.”

And again, Paul is simply falsifying evidence when he claims far more job growth under Reagan than actually took place, and when he says the Reagan years were the “last time” such growth occurred.
– Brooks Jackson

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/rand-p ... istortion/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 17th, 2014, 12:09 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2799
Post Re: Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
Rand might be wrong on the numbers, but in principle he's right. Because under Reagan, you had jobs that moved a large percentage from the lower class to middle class and middle class to upper class, where under Clinton, because of the appeal of Glass/Steagle, you had a large amount of jobs created by the dot com bubble that quickly disappeared after the crash in 2001. Because of what happened on 9/11, most of that get swept under the rug because "terrorist attack" is an easier explanation than a bubble burst of unqualified people with fake credentials who made a fast buck on the fad of the time. There's a difference between real jobs being created because businesses actually grew and jobs being created because of hoaxery and temporary projects. Remember the Census when Obama took office? They claimed millions of jobs created even though everyone knew they would be gone in 3 months?


April 17th, 2014, 12:24 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2716
Post Re: Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
The economy is so complex; anyone trying to draw simple cause-effect relationships is simply ignorant.

Basic logic dictates that taxes are bad for the economy. But you cannot say, "this tax cut created jobs" "this tax cut wrecked the economy." It's just disingenuous.


April 17th, 2014, 2:23 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12153
Post Re: Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
Blueskies wrote:
The economy is so complex; anyone trying to draw simple cause-effect relationships is simply ignorant.
This is my thought as well. There are too many variables to contend with, especially being a Global economy these days.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 17th, 2014, 4:06 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3841
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Factcheck: Rand Paul’s Supply-side Distortion
TheRealWags wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
The economy is so complex; anyone trying to draw simple cause-effect relationships is simply ignorant.
This is my thought as well. There are too many variables to contend with, especially being a Global economy these days.


Let's be fair though, this speech was to the general public, which sadly is pretty ignorant for the most part. If you get into the complexity of everything involved, the audience will lose interest and the point falls on deaf ears.

IMO he rounded to the nearest "whole number" and the author is kind of nitpicking. Yes 1.6 million is a very large number, but when compaired to 20 million, that's pretty close.

I also think it's unfair to compaire the Reagan boost to the Clinton boost in economies. For the most part Clinton rode out the tail end of trickle down economics, but added in easier ways to get credit. Part of yesterday's bubble burst was caused by legislation done by the Clinton administration. so while the economy thrived under Clinton, it was destined to only be short term IMO.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


April 17th, 2014, 5:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.