There were countless other factors involved in the US experience - not least Forrest Trump and his insistence on US first...

Anyway - let's see how this helps:-

https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-38632...


There are, of course - some contradictions here - e.g. stating that Clinton reduced 'welfare recipients' from 12m to 4 (aroundabout) is shooting fish in a barrel when you consider that after two years a person was cut off.  Of course the number will decline of RECIPIENTS when you cut them off....

Meantime - "His Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised the top tax rate from 28% to 36% for high-income earners.  He increased the top corporate tax rate from 34% to 35%. He created the earned income tax credit for low-income families and raised the gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon."  How say you to this?  RAISING the top bracket and company tax lowered unemployment.....

Once more - lowering the tax rate for the top enders who already do not anywhere near pay tax on the total incomes will do nothing but give them more luxury for overseas trips and fancy cars and such - not have them flooding to put their money into new ventures that always carry an element of risk ...  It's an old New England Yankee principle - Never Lose Your Capital!

....... and without investment in new ventures (which carry a hazard of risk) there can be no genuine upsurge in the economy, since all the other areas are now Gone With The Wind.....

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2020 at 12:25pm:


That sort of interpretation covers all ways to Rome... there is a vast world of difference between  observations, and examples... I merely offer a small amount - and it is YOU who are relied upon to read the entire article and draw conclusions ...

Why is it, do you think, that some claim, with zero foundation, that lowering tax rates for the top end will result in greater employment, but when an example is given of the opposite result, that second example is not valid?

Wouldn't be ideological blindness, would it?

As for long-winded - hardly my fault that many here suffer Anglolinguaphobia - either pathological or 'learned behaviour' kind - though I understand Yale is leading the way by embracing Inclusivity nowadays - they are accepting White Straight Non-ethnic English-speaking Men for a change...

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:


Ah - so you fail to see that what you accused me of is also (if indeed it is) a serious fault of the 'other' side of the coin?

I cannot save you..... I've given example of where raising the high end tax rate superficially caused a rise in employment.... someone else said that cutting penalty rates, purported to cause a rise in employment, did nothing of the sort, which indicates that the experiment of giving more to the top does not work.... there are NO examples of lowering the high end tax rate causing a jump in employment.... and I did say that the entire exercise is built on many different inputs... not just one.

One of us has a lot to say but nothing to say....  you simply can't follow.... that's why I'm the professor and you are an ideological bloodhound seeking some light.....

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2020 at 3:05pm:


Aha!  The true ideologue!  You don't CARE.

Every revolutionary movement has the same virtue - it utterly fails to consider the impact of its progress on others.....

Many eggs must be broken to attain the final solution, neh?  And alles is gut as long as those eggs are not your own.... neh?

I alluded to that in my response to LTYC's inane comment on yadda disappearing and being a Mossad agent etc....

I have a vacancy for a concentration camp guard..... interested? It's all for the greater good of the Mother/Fatherland..... duties include sweeping out the gas chambers..... but you wouldn't care about that.......

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 31^st, 2020 at 1:17am:


You are a hypocrit Grapps. You post things you know are crap, and justify them because the "other side" does the same, then complain I don't criticise them also. So we have two groups spewing crap at each other, and they don't even believe what they say themselves, but anyone who points this out to them is the 'ideologue' because they don't take the time to evenly measure their criticism of liars. Why not just grow up and stop lying, instead of whining about whether you get more or less criticism than the other liars?

Anyway - cutting taxes to the top end is a proven failure.... does nothing for the economy and increases inequality... just separates the 'deserving rich' further from the 'undeserving poor'.

That's where revolutions are born......

Quote:


What a load of rubbish, what do you mean may fail to boost productivity ? It is a dead certainty, How is giving wealthy people more money for doing nothing ever going to increase productivity ?

Rewarding the mates is not about productivity they couldn't give a rats arse about productivity.