Reagonomics, once implemented did not produce immediate results but then an economic explosion happened here the likes world history had ever seen. Despite the tax cuts, revenues to The Treasury Doubled (23% increase when inflation is factored in).
It was President John F. Kennedy who called for a 30 percent across-the-board reduction in tax rates that ended the tyranny of a government that could take 90 cents in taxes out of a dollar of earnings. Kennedy argued correctly that the lower tax rates would "raise revenues in the long run." He was right; the lower tax rates spurred a burst of prosperity after he was tragically assassinated.
"tyrrany of government." What was more tyrannical, our progessive tax system or Jim Crow? "but then an economic explosion happened here the likes world history had ever seen." That boom included a lot of borrowing and government spending. Anyway, no one paid 90% of income in taxes. You had to meet an incredibly high threshold to have a small percentage of your income taxed at 90%, and there were also lots of loopholes. But, that was an absurdly high tax rate even in a progressive tax system. Good riddance. Reagan's top tax rate for the first 6 years of his presidency was around 50%. The economy did boom, though, supported by govt spending and not just tax cuts, and Reagan was a pretty good president. He deserves credit. But, the deficit shot up too. BTW, the economy was even better under Clinton and he increased taxes. The deficit declined and he left Bush with a budget surplus and a national debt of $5 trillion that was declining. Then we had a big tax cut, a war on terror, massive govt spending, etc., and our national debt is now around $30 trillion after two decades of government spending with tax rates lower than under Reagan's first term and also lots of loopholes for the wealthy that weren't in the Reagan plan. (But look at all the cool stuff we bought and now own with all that debt? Our great grandkids are gonna love us for all that awesome stuff we bought on credit, amirite?)
Anyway, don't have taxes too high or too low. Sometimes raising taxes doesn't affect economic growth negatively. Sometimes it does. Don't fall for bumper-sticker slogans about taxes (tax cuts don't pay for themselves). I'm fine with paying lower taxes but then the debt and deficit increases. I want lower taxes not because I think it's good for the national economy. It's good for me and my family and I don't need some larger issue to defend my desire to pay less in taxes. But, cutting taxes does increase the debt and deficit and no elected leaders who want to cut taxes seem interested in reducing spending except on things the other party supports.
Truss decided to cut taxes, especially on the wealthy and business, and increase immigration when conservatives in Britain really aren't all that libertarian. She was around 17% popularity. She embraced Reaganism and it didn't work. It's no longer the 1980s. Tory voters didn't see Truss offering anything but cutting taxes on the rich and increased immigration and electric bills. She ignored cultural issues. Then again, I don't really know what a conservative is today? Is it just someone who's loyal to a personality, rather than policies, as long as that personality insults the other team, owns the libs on social media, avoids vaccines and embraces authoritarianism? Culture generally unites conservatives. But Truss and the Tory leadership focused on economics instead. Conservatism cannot look for its identity today mainly in economics. Libertarianism appeals mainly to a small number of spectrumy, college-educated white dudes. We can smoke weed now. No need to be a libertarian.
Anyway, the social justice left is full of lunatics. Confront them.
I'm thinking 7-5 but hopefully 8-4 with a win in Oxford.
www.theguardian.com
