The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter

Reader Comments
Back to article

“Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.”
Going back to Newt/Bill Clinton and GW Bush, lower income groups were given tax relief. Yet revenue for government INCREASED. NO “planned deficits ”. Do quote Kennedy with source.
A favorite thing liberals like to point to is debt. Congress outspends the extra revenue tax cuts provide…

Bill Hedges of MO 2:02AM January 27, 2011

Sorry Robert, history proves you wrong. Worked for Kennedy, Reagan, Newt/Clinton tax cuts, and Bush before Bill Clinton's housing mess caused bad recession.
Worked way below 91 % rate...
Let JFK speak to that:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
"The Reagan tax cuts"
"Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
Clinton:
“The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22”
“Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We’ve also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.”
“During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).”
http://cliftonchadwick.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-soak-the-rich-catch-22/
Bush:
Well, CBO says rich paid more taxes with Bush tax cuts:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 1:28AM January 27, 2011

First, let's get PAYGO out of the way. Super majority Democrat Congress passed it as I recall. Was more of a PUBLICITY STUNT in actuality by Democrats.
PAYGO was cast aside upon signing into law. Little excuse for not following PAYGO with Democrats controlling Congress last two years:
“Democrats set to consider $197 billion in unpaid-for ‘emergency spending’”
“Democrats in Congress have added $173 billion in new spending to the federal deficit in just three months since they passed a law requiring that any new expenditures be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget.”
“They will try this week to add another $197 billion in two separate measures. The House is expected to vote Wednesday on a package of extensions in government aid to unemployed Americans, Medicaid funding for states, and tax breaks that will add $134 billion to the $1.4 trillion deficit.
“The Senate is expected to vote this week on a $63 billion supplemental spending bill. Half of that amount would go to the war in Afghanistan. The rest is for aid to Haiti, settlement of land claims with American Indians and discrimination claims of black farmers, compensation of war veterans exposed to Agent Orange, foreign aid to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and replenishment of the government’s disaster relief fund.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/25/democrats-set-to-consider-197-billion-in-emergency-spending-that-will-add-to-the-debt/#ixzz1CCglmUgA
“PAYGO for thee but not for me”
“The Democratic position is therefore:”
“tax cuts should be paid for;”
“Republicans are irresponsible for pushing to “extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich,” meaning preventing all tax increases from taking effect January 1, even though doing so would raise future budget deficits by $4.726 T relative to current law; “and yet Congress should “prevent tax increases on the middle class” from taking effect January 1, even though doing so would raise future budget deficits by $3.756 T relative to current law.”
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/08/18/paygo-for-thee/
This link discuses unemployment extension, since RECENT passage, of PAYGO.
http://crfb.org/document/paying-lip-service-paygo-not-enough
I think you will find in 2nd extension of unemployment much of cost offset is FAR OFF in the future. Likely to never happen.
Enough said on hypocrisy of PAYGO.