RFK Jr. Would Have Made JFK Proud

Friday, September 13, 2024

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Donald Trump, five of his siblings issued a statement denouncing him: "Our brother Bobby's decision ... is a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear." Among the values they cited was "a shared vision of a brighter future" defined by "economic promise." But when it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is much better aligned with the values of President John F. Kennedy than Kamala Harris is. In December 1962, speaking at the Economic Club of New York, JFK said that the "federal government's most useful role" was "to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures" by cutting "the fetters which hold back private spending." He committed "to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes."

Posted by BellRinger at 06:18 PM | 13 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

This almost seems like a cry for help from you.

#1 | Posted by morris at 2024-09-13 06:28 PM

... by cutting "the fetters which hold back private spending ...

Back in the time of fmr Pres Kennedy, the trickle down theory appeared to work.

Unfettering expenditure in the economy benefited the middle and lower classes, not just the wealthy.

But then the wealthy, in the Reagan era, tilted the economy towards growing the wealthy and away from growing the Country.

So the main (entire?) premise of the OpEd your current alias cites seems to be based upon the usual quicksand of its posts.

JFK dropped the upper bracket from 91 percent to 65 percent, and lower the corporate tax rate from 52 percent to 47 percent.

I could support those numbers. Let's raise today's rates to something that makes more sense!

Circling the drain. Pobrecito.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED - NOTE THE RATES

The President addressed the issue of tax reform before the Economic Club of New York at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on December 14, 1962.[5] On the advice of Walter Heller, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, President John F. Kennedy proposed a tax cut designed to help spur economic growth.[6] Kennedy believed that the tax cut would stimulate consumer demand, which in turn would lead to higher economic growth, lower unemployment, and increased federal revenues.[7] Kennedy's support for a tax cut reflected his conversion to Keynesian economics, which favored temporary deficit spending in order to boost economic growth.[8] In January 1963, Kennedy presented Congress with a tax proposal that would reduce the top marginal tax rate from 91 percent to 65 percent, and lower the corporate tax rate from 52 percent to 47 percent; in total, the cut was projected to decrease income taxes by about $10 billion and corporate taxes by about $3.5 billion. The plan also included reforms designed to reduce the impact of itemized deductions, as well as provisions to help the elderly and handicapped.[9] Conservatives revolted at giving Kennedy a key legislative victory before the election of 1964 and blocked the bill in Congress.[10]

Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded Kennedy as president after the latter was assassinated in November 1963. After Johnson agreed to decrease the total federal budget to under $100 billion, powerful conservative Senator Harry F. Byrd dropped his opposition to a tax cut, clearing the way for its passage as the Revenue Act of 1964.[11] Johnson signed the bill into law on February 26, 1964.[12] Passage of the long-stalled tax cut facilitated efforts to move ahead on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[13]

en.wikipedia.org

As LEGALLYYOURDEAD's post clearly shows comparing the tax cut JFK got passed in Comgress to the massive giveaways by Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 and then Trump is preposterous and just a laughable attempt to make RFK Jr. seem less like a lunatic with absolutely nothing of importance to say about much of anything. Those making that poor excuse of an argument know how desperate and ridiculous it is but they throw it up like mud at the proverbial wall to see if any of it sticks. As it turns out none sticks but they then either look stupid of dishonest. You choose but it is one or the other.

"Back in the time of fmr Pres Kennedy, the trickle down theory appeared to work. Unfettering expenditure in the economy benefited the middle and lower classes, not just the wealthy."

It worked when Reagan did it in 1986.

Where the U gets weird is in their (our) refusal to implement a VAT. We wouldn't be having these discussions as much if the US had a VAT, like pretty much every other western country.

Even Investopedia laughs in your general direction:

"5 Reasons Why Supply-Side Economics Does Not Work
Many of the claims made by supply-siders have been disproven over the years"

www.investopedia.com

So...you would favor of a VAT, higher taxes, or both?

__________
#7 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-15 12:32 PM
"5 Reasons Why Supply-Side Economics Does Not Work
Many of the claims made by supply-siders have been disproven over the years"
www.investopedia.com

I've already debunked this particular "opinion piece" in the Investopedia and similar ones well over a year ago, so I won't go into a lot of details again, except to note that it's not written by an economist, "reviewed" by a lawyer, and "fact-checked" by an aspiring yoga and mind wellness influencer.

The main problem with this "opinion piece" is that it's very short on facts and very heavy on biased opinions, particularly skewed against what it mischaracterized as supply-side economics (which has since become "normal economics" in most advanced and developing countries, particularly in former socialist Warsaw Block countries)**, and in favor of so-called "backlash of left-wing thinkers," and it's also full of qualifiers (like "not always" etc.) and false "correlations" / comparisons, let alone trying to prove causations etc.

Another is the long-debunked "correlation" of marginal tax rate cuts with deficits. Deficits are the results of uncontrolled spending, not tinkering with marginal tax rates - while the actual percent of income tax revenues to GDP went up or stayed the same (didn't go down as a result of tax rate cuts), the spending "over budget" and on "off-budget items" have increased significantly, by Congress + Presidents.

Total tax revenues have stayed in median range of 16% - 18% of GDP since 1960s, only dipping below 14% after GFC and stock market meltdown in 2009, and getting above 19% at the height of "internet bubble" in 2000 (due to cap gains), despite vastly different tax rates and brackets over decades, and higher marginal individual (including cap gains) and corporate tax rates and additional taxes, like Social Security and excise taxes (~2.5% of total taxes) .

For instance, we understand that high taxes on tobacco discourage the consumption, or that tariffs/taxes lead to higher prices and lower consumption. IOW, we understand the fact that costs can and do affect buyers' behavior - yet somehow fail to accept it when it comes to income, corporate or other taxes.

One of the things that Reagan's tax reforms have done is reducing brackets down to 3-4, i/of 15-30+ in the 50s-70s.

There were also grudging acknowledgements that supply-side policy is a long-term solution to produce desired results, yet examples of it "not working" were short-timed - well, duh - we've had 40 years of low inflation / disinflation to be thankful for it.

We've just had another "experiment" with Keynesian "quick-fix" demand-side economics ("trickle-up") which inevitably and predictably leads to high inflation and consequent increase in "inequality" as money from the lower quintiles of "demanders" / consumers / buyers "trickle up" faster to highest quintiles of producers / sellers / "suppliers" - i.e., money flows "from the bottom up" or "from the middle out." ***

-----

** If you want a quick, unbiased tutorial - not a biased opinion piece - on supply-side from Investopedia, reviewed by economics professor:

www.investopedia.com - Supply-Side Economics: What You Need to Know

And short, but factual and comprehensible essay:

www.econlib.org - Supply-Side Economics - James D. Gwartney, professor of economics and former chief economist of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress

*** "From the middle out" always reminds me of 'Silicon Valley' series where that was a description of main character's high-speed compression algorithm.
__________

"The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn't Work"

www.americanprogress.org

"Neither history nor research supports supply-side economics"

equitablegrowth.org

Debunking Laffer

"A series of reports from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy explains why these supply side claims are not supported by the evidence, and exposes the many serious flaws in the analyses that Laffer has constructed to lend it support."

itep.org

"Art Laffer still thinks he was right about tax cuts

At 82, the Reagan tax-cut cheerleader is still preaching the gospel of trickle-down economics, even after some dire failures of the Laffer curve.'"

"After instituting historic cuts to tax rates, Reagan implemented tax-raising initiatives for several years to offset mounting deficits.

The deficit also grew after Trump cut taxes. And a decade ago in Kansas, after Republican Gov. Sam Brownback instituted tax reductions on the wealthy that Laffer hailed as a "revolution in a cornfield," state leaders had to impose severe cuts to education and infrastructure as they scrambled to close a massive deficit. T

he state legislature then reversed the tax cuts.

"It turned out pretty badly," said Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy adviser to Reagan and a Laffer critic.

"It lost so much revenue that the same people who passed the tax cut had to pass an increase to keep the whole financial enterprise afloat. It shows the lack of seriousness that underlies all of Arthur's analyses."