More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Cenk Uygur

Cenk Uygur

Posted: October 6, 2010 03:13 AM

The Big Republican Lie on Tax Cuts

What's Your Reaction:

Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession..." Or in good times or in mediocre times or ever. All tax cuts are always good.

Republicans add another layer of absurdity to this as they say that tax cuts always lead to more revenue for the federal government because of supply-side economics. The economy expands, people make more money and the government collects more in taxes even though it takes a smaller percentage. Great theory -- how about if we cut taxes down to 1 percent? Would the government still get more revenue?

The question isn't whether tax cuts or tax increases are always the right answer. The question is at what level of taxes do we stimulate the economy, collect enough revenue to run a functioning government and let people keep as much of their income as we can. No one, not even the world's biggest liberal, wants to pay more in taxes personally. We just want to find the right balance so that everyone wins.

When you look to see what that right level is in our history, what you find is very interesting. In our glory years between 1945-1965 (these are the years that the Republicans dream of going back to), the top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 77 percent and 94 percent. I was stunned when I first learned that. People's heads would explode if you suggested those levels now. Yet, it worked for us for decades as we built the great American middle class and our manufacturing base.

The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to1931, the highest marginal tax rate was as low as it has almost ever been -- between 24-25 percent. And between 2003-2010, the highest marginal tax rate was also at one of its lowest points -- 35 percent. So, what happened when we had these really low tax rates? The Great Depression and the Great Recession.

In fact, when you look at when the economy takes off and when it slows down, it almost perfectly matches the fluctuation of our tax rates. Except the correlation is the exact opposite of conventional wisdom -- the economy crashes after tax cuts and takes off after tax increases.

Now, conservative critics will scream that correlation does not equal causation. Yes, but it's pretty good evidence. And you have no counter evidence. If you see that every time someone jumps out of a building, they come crashing down. You can argue about causation all you want, but my guess is you're not going to jump out of the building.

Yet we do. We have been religiously cutting taxes since 1980. How has that worked out for us? We've had median wages stagnating, manufacturing disappearing and now enormous unemployment. If tax cuts are so great, why did our economy get pulverized after Bush passed the two largest tax cuts in history?

Of course, the reality is that America has been sold this bill of goods by the very people who stand to benefit the most from cutting taxes to the rich -- the rich. And it has worked for them. Since 1980, the average after-tax income for the top 1% of this country has risen by 281%. The average household in the top 1% saw their wealth go up by a whopping, unbelievable $973,100. See, the tax cuts worked for somebody. The people who pushed for them. Mission accomplished!

At this point, you have to be curious as to why the economy goes up when we raise taxes, especially at rates that seem to defy common sense. I was a Reagan Republican growing up because the top tax bracket of 70 percent seemed crazy to me and he brought that down. I thought a rate that high couldn't possibly be the right balance.

But now that I am a small business owner I get it. You see if taxes are low, like 20 percent, as a partner in my small business I am motivated to take out our profits as income for myself. Let's say my share of the business led to $100,000 in profits. If taxes are 20 percent, I pay $20,000 and keep $80,000. I can live with that split.

But what happens when taxes are high? If I have to pay 60 percent, then I'm left with only $40,000 and the government takes $60,000. That sucks. I don't want to "lose" all that money. So, what do I do instead? I re-invest it in the business, so I don't have to pay taxes!

If at the end of the year, my tax bill is zero, then I pay zero. Instead, by plowing the profits back into the business I help to grow it and make it even more profitable down the road. I might even hire more people with the extra money I kept in the business because that's a lot better option than just handing it over to the government.

So, higher taxes don't lead to more investment and higher employment because I'm a liberal who likes to give away my money to the government. They lead to those good results for the exact opposite reason -- because I don't want to give away my money to the government.

Logic, you can't beat it. Unless of course you have a lot of money and you just buy off the whole system. And that's where we stand now, with the truth turned on its head. But the next time someone claims tax cuts help the economy, don't let them get away with that bald-faced lie.

Watch The Young Turks Here

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

 
 
  • Comments
  • 671
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
09:54 PM on 11/28/2010
Okay, I give. Who is the world's biggest liberal?

Republicans and their allies lie because they are greedy and hate all American citizens except for the upper classes. On top of that, Congressional Republicans are the the most out of touch people in the U.S., outside of bad dog Democrats.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/extend-unemployment-now/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctor4kids
Incite civility and reason
05:00 PM on 10/11/2010
Mr. Uygur, you hit the nail on the head. As a partner in a medical practice, I am a small business person. We are incorporated as an "S Corp" which means our profits are taxed to us the partners as individuals. Our salaries, like those of our 25 employees, are not profits. They are business expenses just like our rent, malpractice insurance, health insurance and supplies. In the past couple of years we've been fortunate enough to just about break even. A few years ago though it did look like we were going to turn a profit. So to avoid the extra taxes we invested in an electronic medical system and updated our computer equipment. In other words we put the money back into our company and stimulated the economy in the process. If the tax rates go up, we'd be even more motivated to invest in our own business. It's time to let the Bush tax cuts to the top wage earners expire.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Bullard
10:06 PM on 10/10/2010
I hate the IRS. I don't trust economists. I really don't trust politicians. It seems to me that this premise doesn't take into account the complexities of the system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BetteB
06:36 PM on 10/10/2010
No more "it is obvious that" or "everyone knows" because that is one way we stop thinking for our self, and allow ourselves to be told what to believe, right on Mr. Uygur! No more blinding following "authority", and let us start to question the validity of long held truths as they were founded on incomplete data most of the time. For instance the "norms" of human behavior were based on what Reality was like 100 years ago. We have new norms now, and need to utilize new data into our old systems.

Let's think for our selves, before that is illegal!

VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRAT TICKET, then we can weed out from there, and get some of US into office to fix this mess.

Thank you.
Love
Bette
03:24 PM on 10/10/2010
What you Liberals really make an argument for is a consumption, rather than income, tax. The hell with all your social engineering, what's the "proper" income, how much should people keep...when people spend, then tax at a flat rate, pure and simple. Let people earn and keep all their income; tax it when it's spent.

The job of the government is collect taxes and protect our individual freedoms, not micro-manage human behavior, which is precisely what the income tax code atrocity is all about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BetteB
06:39 PM on 10/10/2010
Social engineering has been going on since society evolved, your point? Religion did it, public schools do it, mass media does it.
08:49 PM on 10/10/2010
My point: social engineering is NOT a constitutional responsibility of the monopoly power of the government. And if it is, then we give up our freedoms, and the consequences can be horrendous (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, Fidel's Cuba, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Id Amin's Uganda, Mengistu's Ethiopia, Robespierre's France).

Got it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spatulaRS
09:01 PM on 10/10/2010
To protect our individual freedoms, society has found it necessary to use our government to combat the abuses of big business. Like it or not, corporations are not people, and they will use whatever power and wealth they can to exploit citizens of this country for profit. All your boo-hooing about social engineering completely ignores the fact that our government can come together to protect our interests when we the people say it needs to. And if the actions we take consist of regulation or government bureaus, then so be it. Nothing unconstitutional about it. There is a cost of mobilizing resources to protect the interests of the people; we would pay something for our infrastructure and services with or without the government. If we weren't paying taxes for roads, we would be paying tolls.
And never forget that our founding fathers and original patriots supported John Locke's view of Hobbes' social contract: they believed government was a good thing. I do too. I vote taxes over tolls.
12:45 AM on 10/11/2010
More crap!

POLITICIANS sell big government to "protect" us from our own behavior. What happens? Big Government protects the very behavior it's supposed to prevent. How the hell do you think Al Capone got so big? The Department of Education? HEW? Medicare? Social Security?

Big government is a MONOPOLY, you liberals cannot stand Big Corporations, why do you put up with Big Government, which as you make it bigger PROTECTS Big Corporations, keeps them from open market competition and failing when they should (FNMA, GM, AIG, SEIU, ACORN) and allows them to take crazy risks because they know they're politically protected.

We consumers have no better protection than the brutalities of the free market, companies that fail us die a quick death. Unless they're protected by the new royalty, Big Government, and their protectors of today, President Mom-jeans and his Demo-rats.
photo
Trudy Trejo
Corporation = People = Romney = Obama = Perry = Cl
05:06 PM on 10/11/2010
Government is used to protect monopolies and big business. The bigger the government, the bigger the corruption.

Look at North Korea. Now that is some big government. You like that kind of system?
04:00 AM on 10/08/2010
So by your logic, taxing all income will really get the economy moving, and inspire people to work their butts off, even if any income they get is handouts from Big Government.

Right...
01:19 PM on 10/09/2010
Straw man.
03:10 PM on 10/10/2010
What does that mean, please explain your argument...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FredBrighton
up the establishment!
08:43 AM on 10/10/2010
No, that's YOUR logic. His logic was explained very clearly and was nothing like what you claim. So you're either a non-reader complainer, or a non-thoughtful reader complainer. Or you might be a Republican who will disagree with anything a liberal might suggest even if your argument is nonsensical. read the article again without grinding your teeth at his "liberal nature". Then go check the facts with the official government records and if he's wrong come back with real numbers that demonstrate it. You can't interpret things so loosely and you sure can't extrapolate a syllogism past it's logical end point. e.g. Dogs eat meat, cats eat meat, cats and dogs die before humans therefor by that logic vegetarians are immortal. See? It's almost a form of logic. Go back and try again.
03:10 PM on 10/10/2010
My logic is very simple; get the tax man out of our face. Cenk makes a political argument against Republicans for supporting lower taxes; then he turns logic on its face by saying that higher taxes, supported of course by Big Government Democrats, are really lower taxes because the tax laws give you a tax break if you "re-invest" your income, rather than keep it for yourself.

Which is fine, except he's arguing apples and oranges for building his big government nanny-state, and saying that Republicans, or people other than Big Government Democrats, cannot be allowed the freedom to spend their own money, because the outcome will be contrary to the Big Democrat "greater good" and therefore, by implication, immoral. People cannot be trusted with free choice, they must be socially engineered by Big Government.

That's what I take from his argument, from the argument of every "liberal" (what a travesty from its classic definition) and from his slamming the Republican argument of lower tax rates, leave more income in the hands of we citizens.
03:28 PM on 10/10/2010
BTW appreciate the efforts you make to engender your thoughtful comments, agreeing or disagreeing besides the point, thanks for taking the time, sign me on as a fan!
photo
NickTAZ
The blue = Job Growth
12:53 PM on 10/07/2010
We need to simplify the tax code!!! In an effort to make taxation "fair" we have created so many rules that no one can keep them straight except for CPAs of the super rich, who then find loopholes in the new "fair" rules. I'm a liberal Democrat who supports a flat tax on ALL income, including on wall street investments and the like.
12:23 PM on 10/07/2010
This update to a misleading NPR story hits the same issue. The reader comments were dead on right (and more informed than the journalists).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129940301
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Angie Tyne 1
I want my disagree button!!
06:45 PM on 10/07/2010
Thanks for the link it was very informative to read it and the posts from informed commentors.
11:27 AM on 10/07/2010
I think there are merits to his argument. For one example, the effects on LLC-type "small businesses" of letting the top-end personal income tax cuts expire has been misrepresented or misunderstood by many. "Even NPR" did a piece with some business owner claiming he couldn't afford to buy new equipment if his "business" tax rate went up. However, to my knowledge, this business would not be taxed per se, only this owner's post-expense (post equipment purchase, post employee salary, etc) take-home personal profit (income) would be taxed higher (and only that portion of his post-expense income over, say, $250K). As a small LLC owner, I can attest first-hand that the tax rate is a significant factor in decisions whether to spent pre tax business dollars on helpful equipment or an assistant (or even some qualifying perks) vs. to take it home as income. Unless I am missing something fundamental, a higher top-end tax rate could indeed encourage "small" business owners to invest in their business (e.g., buy useful equipment, hire assistants) rather than to take it out as taxable profit. I am not sure why this concept (not to mention the basic tax facts on post-expense income tax vs. a "business tax") has been completely missed by the press and "fact checkers". (?)
09:15 AM on 10/07/2010
Had this post deleted three times. Will try one last time. His arguments are like saying that because its always dark at midnight, midnight must cause the darkness. I will just pick at a couple of his points. First, I don’t know a business person who invests more in his business because taxes were increased. Completely illogical. He totally forgets that as taxes go up, they go up for those who consume the products made by biz, and demand falls. I don’t know an economist that claims the Reagan tax cut caused the early 80s recession. He needs a history lesson. It was caused by the Fed slamming the breaks on the economy to break the 15% inflation the economy was mired in. He says median wages have been stuck since the 80s. Not true. Here is a graph of median household income (pls note this is MEDIAN, not average): http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/?chartid=527 Following the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s median income rose over 22% through the end of the 90s. I could go on…..
cuchulain
Occupy the Tao
12:11 PM on 10/07/2010
Actually, wages have stagnated or fallen since 1973.. During every presidential term, other than Clinton's, inequality increased markedly. The gap between the haves and the have nots grew dramatically.

Do you really think it's a positive thing to go from 43K to 47K in 16 years? That's wage stagnation. It doesn't come anywhere close to even keeping up with inflation, much less gains in worker productivity, profits for businesses, or the massive increase in executive salaries.

And where did the tax cuts go? One would have thought that executives and ownership could have passed on at least SOME of the additional money they received through their tax cuts. But, nooooooo. They can't do that. It would be . . . well, downright un-American to "share the wealth" those workers actually made for them.
07:25 PM on 10/07/2010
Re-look at the graph...it is in constant 2008 dollars which means the impact of inflation has been adjusted out. So the increases are over an above inflation. So, from '70 to '83 (when cuts occurred) median income increased about 3%. From '83 to '99 it increased about 23%, after adjusting for inflation. I guess I'd take the post tax cut performance any day. Anyways, my point is that the author is plain wrong saying wages stagnated. He didn't do any research or use any data for his article. Just another piece that is written from feelings instead of facts. Now to be fair, the Clinton years showed good nice increases in household income despite the tax increase. Tells me that small modest tax increases aren't the end of the world. Also, should note that we can't conclude that taxes are the only determiner of houehold income. Obviously there are a ton of other factors.
cuchulain
Occupy the Tao
12:16 PM on 10/07/2010
Also, if great economic performances when taxes are high doesn't necessarily prove high taxes are NECESSARY for great economic performance . . . it DOES prove that low taxes are not.

And that's the key. For years we've been hearing that lower taxes are the mother of all cures for everything. There is zero evidence to support that. Even if a person looks at the data and sees nothing but a coincidence that high taxes generally accompany periods of growth and lower inequality . . . they can't keep claiming that low taxes are necessary for growth and a reduction in inequality.

If you say that you need X to get to Y, and the data shows we get Y without X, you just lost your argument.
08:58 AM on 10/07/2010
Cenk, You left out one of the bigger benefits of increasing Taxes. The rest of the World sees that you are being responsible and decreasing the Debt. This increases the incentive to invest in an America that is more responsible and increases America's Credit rating due to a stability factor. Not to mention the added benefit of actually decreasing the National Debt. A Country is just like a person, when it comes to having a credit rating. If a person has more Money going out than they have coming in, it gives tham a poor Credit score. If you increase your income, by raising Taxes, you decrease the imballance between Money going out and Money coming in. Therefore, you increase your Credit Rating and you become more stable. Simple!
08:46 AM on 10/07/2010
This analysis is weak at best. First, I don't know a businessperson who invests more in their business because taxes are high. He forgets the other side of the equation: the consumer. So, what happens to demand for that businesses' products when the gov't takes more out the pockets of the consumer? He must think it goes up since he invests more in his biz to avoid taxes. That's a rediculous argument. His arguements on taxes seems the same. Any student of economics will tell you the recession after the Reagan tax cuts was caused by the Fed slamming the breaks on the economy to break the back of inflation. He says median household wages have stagnated sine the 80s. Not true. Here is graph of them: http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/?chartid=527 The largest increase was right after the Reagan tax cut. Wages have stagnated for the bast decade. He equates to tax policy. What about trade policy? We open our markets to 4B people willing to work for a couple bucks a day. I wonder if that contributed? This analysis is is a waste of time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nofir2
08:14 AM on 10/07/2010
Sounds like a setup that keeps repeating
“Alexander Tabarrok also laid it out very clearly, back in 2003:
President Bush has neither proposed nor implemented a tax cut—ONLY A TAX SHIFT. … sooner or later taxes must increase (or inflation, a type of tax, will go up). Milton Friedman, the libertarian-leaning Nobel prize-winning economist, has long reminded us to be suspicious of any tax cut not matched by a spending cut. … they have a secret Machiavellian argument held in reserve. The Bush deficits, they believe, will force future administrations—presumably of a more liberal bent—to cut spending. … conservatives seem to believe that the public does want big government and that the only way to curb government growth it is to fool the public with lower taxes today so that the costs of government will be so high tomorrow that no one will accept the offer. How cynical. … we have two political parties: the Tax and Spenders and the No-Tax and Spendersâ€
Tax cuts nor spending cuts are the answer alone. Tax equlity and PAYGO are the answer.
07:14 AM on 10/07/2010
Guys who disagree with Uyger on his views, please come back with counter arguments that make sense. And please give factual evidence to show your case that tax cuts stimulate the economy and creates jobs. I find Uyger's post logical and factual enough. If the top 20% is controlling 84% of the wealth in the country, that's a sign saying no wealth is actually trickling down to the masses.

If this continues, America can very well be ranked as a third world country. I believe, neither Democrats nor Republicans want this to happen. Please see the light, the truth. Go after your politicians who speak this absurd lie and get them to change their position for the better. Our votes are what that's keeping them in office. Threatening not to vote in masses will do the trick.
08:32 AM on 10/07/2010
Here genius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTpOeGM4Vk
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waduvall
12:36 PM on 10/08/2010
That was awesome. The same points that I have been pointing out for so friggin long.
09:21 AM on 10/07/2010
I did...about 300 comments ago
01:30 AM on 10/07/2010
For all you Democrat who wish to have Swedish, or Norwegian style benevolent socialism...

IT REQUIRES TARIFFS.

Go read about their Tariff system. Its on their government websites.
Fake "Free Trade" has destroyed our industrial base.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Msquad99
Space is a vacuum because earth sucks.
04:45 AM on 10/07/2010
For all you Republicans who wish to have a World War II fascist, corporate owned state go read the list of off shored, out sourced manufacturers and companies that have taken place since 1980. Dismantling of American manufacturing destroyed our industrial base.
06:09 AM on 10/07/2010
I agree with you a 100 per cent.

If we want moels similiar to Sweden it requires protectionist policies not "globalism", which I think is a sham.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Msquad99
Space is a vacuum because earth sucks.
04:50 AM on 10/07/2010
For all you Republicans who wish to have a Germany of the mid 20th Century fascist state go read up on the manufacturing off shored and out sourced to foreign nations for the purpose of not paying Americans a living wage. Dismantling of America's manufacturing has destroyed our industrial base.