The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter

Reader Comments
Back to article

You mean, the JFK with a $100B federal budget in a nation of 180 million Americans, over half of which was for defense? That JFK?
By any measure you want to apply -- per capita adjusted for inflation, or % of GDP, the federal overburden under JFK's roaring economies was not anywhere near what it is today.
Then: 180 Million people.
Today: 32o million people.
Let's be overly generous and call that a factor of x 2.0
Inflation: a factor of maybe 7.5.
JFK's $100B adjusts to maybe $1500B today, not $3800B, and that assumes exactly ZERO percent increase in the per capita efficiency of government since three years before IBM came out with the 029 keypunch...
Our current federal overburden is $2.3T higher per year in current dollars than JFK's fully adjusted and then some $1500B/yr in spending...over half of which was for defense at the peak of the Cold War.
The Left -really- doesn't want folks looking back too closely at JFK's economies, and for sure doesn't want to compare the outlook of the graduating class of 1962 to the graduating class of 2012...

Frediano of PA 1:05PM December 31, 2012

Or, if a free society destroys the few who are rich, it cannot save the many who are poor.

Raenalle DeGidio of OK 9:43PM November 29, 2012

@JEFF SMITH You are correct. We do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem! There's enough evidence that show's lowering taxes creates economic growth.
Republicans say that lowering taxes can actually create higher revenues since it creates economic growth and Democrats call this a myth. Well it is not a myth it has been done! JFK believed lower taxes create economic growth and he was killed before he could put his tax plan into effect so LBJ did it in 1964 and it fueled massive economic growth and revenues actually increased when everyone thought they would decrease. If done right revenues can increase when taxes are cut.
@OLYJAN Are you stupid you ranting liberal? I'm a Republican and we realize that LBJ put JFK's tax plan into effect since JFK was killed BUT the point is JFK is the one who came up with it he is the one who advocated for lower taxes saying it would create economic growth. And it kind of is JFK's tax cut because he came up with it but was killed before he could put it into effect and LBJ promised to carry out JFK's plan. The whole point is the tax cut was JFK's idea!

Justin of MI 12:07AM November 10, 2012

is there any place that the ranting windbags that call themselves "conservatives" do not take up space dumbing down any conversation? sigh.... There was no JFK tax cut. JFK was killed before it even got a committee hearing. JBJ got the tax bill passed, making it the Johnson tax cut. Kennedy just had a proposal and/or talking points.

olyjan of WA 12:32PM October 15, 2012

It's very simple. We have a 16.2 trillion dollar national debt created by both Republicans and Democrats. Low taxes creates economic activity which generates revenue for the government. Government spending is absolutely out of control. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem and if we don't get it under control soon it will consume us all. If there is ANY hope of getting under control it certainly is more likely under Romney but that remains to be seen. One thing is certain, if Obama gets another four years we will be bankrupt.

Jeff smith of PA 10:15PM October 12, 2012

so his tax advisor was trickle down, and kennedy just went along with him, anticipating using the additional revenue from the tax cuts to fund his programs, even though since he didn't believe in trickle down, he knew he wouldn't get any?

bill of GA 4:13PM October 09, 2012

This article might be instructive if it were not based on such dishonest assumptions and inaccuracies. Kennedy wanted to cut taxes in the absence of war, but the war in Vietnam was already going on in 1963. We are also informed here that Democrat administrations balanced budgets while Republicans blow money left and right. The problem is that Congress controls spending, not Predidents. During Clintons first 2 years the economy barely limped along even though the recession ended in the summer of 1992. It was the Republican takeover of congress and Newts Contract with America which brought about the "Clinton" surplus years. Misnamed as Clinton had nothing to do with the budgets he publically railed against, and still to this day assumes credit for!
George W. Bush, like Reagan before him, came into office with the economy in tatters from the DOT COM bubble recession and the 9/11 attacks. He cut taxes and gave us a significant recovery which did increase deficits in the short term. However, the Bush deficits were not very big and were on path to turn into surpluses until the 2007 Democrat takeover of congress and a massive raid on the federal treasury by Pelosi, Reid and finally Obama himself.
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

Rick Averill of FL 7:12PM September 09, 2012

What is "fair" about a story of two able bodied Americans one of which pays taxes and the other pays zero? What is the incentive to work hard and prosper if the government will pay you to not work? Obama wants every citizen to do his/her fair share. If one able bodied American pays three million dollars anually and another pays zero for the same time period, than there cannot be fairness. Americans with disabilities have and will always be taken care of; it is right and "moral". The spin liberals attach to conservatives is ridiculous! Joseph hugh O'brien says(somewhere in his ..."s learn to write by the way) says those who attack social programs and government cannot be trusted because they have their own agenda. Doe you, Joseph trust politicians? The left is owned by Unions. Both are corrupt. I wonder who believes that pumping good money after bad towards public education is a good idea? Where did our President send his children? The Obama girls go to Private schools. Get your heads out of your behinds!

bdog of MA 5:24AM August 16, 2012

sixty-five percent on marginal income would leave the government and programs solvent ... after years of creating a deficit and a class of wealthy that aren't going to be part of our solutions are we better off ... or are we falling into a state of ideology run politics and economics ... choking the governments (city,state and federal) of income hurts everyone eventually ... more so it has created a two class system ... something that our government was trying to eradicate through smart programs and regulating business and financial institutions to protect citizens ... those that attack social programs and government oversight have their own agendas and can't be trusted to act as accountable agents ... these so called 'constitutionalists' are not at all ... those that attack the poor and disabled or unemployed are insensitive and inconsiderate ... we can be better as a country if those that push selfish policies are marginalized and ignored ...

joseph hugh o'brien of TX 2:25PM December 24, 2011

Good hack job. You fail to note that although the tax rate was high, there were multiple deductions used to lower the rate significantly. Good socialist banter but terrible journalism. But you guys aren't journalist right?

Charles Harbinger of CA 6:00PM December 13, 2011