Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Except for the part where you said 'Capitalism is the only viable choice'. I don't get your logic there. Just because it's a good model doesn't mean another better one doesn't exist.
|
True. I probably should have said "capitalism is the only choice that seems to have worked in the modern world." But I sure haven't heard any better ideas that would work in the real world.
Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad
Reaganomics, if examined through the looking glass of Economics, was a mixed bag. It impoverished many people and caused wide-spread poverty, but then again this is not of any concern to most other people as long as they are doing alright.
|
Mmkay, by "Reaganomics" I don't necessarily mean the way the economy was run under Reagan. I guess I should have said "supply-side economics". I think "trickle-down", for the most part, works. There have to be limits in place to prevent abuses, but one of the best ways to increase the livelihood of the people is to make it easier for the people who create jobs to do so.
Quote:
|
Despite the claim that Reaganomics used tax cuts and modest spending as a means of stimulating the economy, the opposite is actually true: taxes rose by total of $375billion, government spending rose by $450billion.
|
I'm not sure if you're obfuscating or just confused, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Reagan <B>did</B> cut taxes, meaning he cut the tax rate. For example, the highest marginal tax rate on individuals when he took office was 70%, which his tax cut package lowered to 28%.
The result of that is, as you point out, an <I>increase in tax revenues generated</I>. Yes, more money came in to the government, because unemployment dropped and there were more people working and thus paying taxes. But that's what Reagan and company expected to happen, so to say that was a failure of their policy is incorrect.