Bill Clinton: Republicans Can’t Explain How Tax Cuts Help

CNBC ^ | Wednesday, 20 Mar 2013 | Kiran Moodley

[presidio9]

As Republicans stubbornly refuse to raise taxes and the sequester grips Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Republicans need to openly state how their proposals, specifically tax cuts, would realistically work for the benefit of the American economy.

In an interview for CNBC Meets, the 42nd president said the crucial issue in politics is always how. "Whatever you decide to do and however much money you have or don't, how do you propose to do it?" the president told CNBC's Tania Bryer. "Suppose you're a Republican. You think the only important thing to do is to cut taxes. Well, not all tax cuts are equal and there's a lot of evidence about what works and what doesn't."

[Hoodat]

Bill Clinton is full of it.

[StAnDeliver]

Because the multiplier of a private sector dollar is three times that of a government sector dollar, Bubba. Period. End of sentence.

[Hoodat]

Bill’s greatest hero was lifelong segregationist and racist, William Fullbright.

[FreeAtlanta]

The stupid little pervert. Bill, you perv, come to my town. I will meet you at McDonald’s, because I don’t want your filth in my home, and I will explain in detail and in a way that a 1st grader can understand, why tax increase are BAD for people and the economy, and why cutting taxes is good.

[Cvengr]

Republicans Can't Explain How Tax Cuts Help.

Democrats Can't Explain How More Debt and Lost Jobs Help.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

But didn’t Bill Clinton sign a capital gains tax cut.

[chris37]

Well, the republicans can’t really explain anything at all for that matter.

[rollo tomasi]

"You think the only important thing to do is to cut taxes. Well, not all tax cuts are equal and there's a lot of evidence about what works and what doesn't."

Instead of money going into bureaucracies that mismanages a person's hard earned dollars as well as creating dependency on the tax payer's labor, the person/taxpayer gets to keep more of what they earn. Next question please.

Btw bleeding hearts, charity comes through the individual heart, not by a barrel of a gun being held by a uncaring bureaucrat pointed at the taxpayer.

[Lucky9teen]

Well, a simple look at history is all that is needed to see what today's mushy Republicans refuse to answer. Republican Calvin Coolidge was able to make it work!
1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues



It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).



The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell.

[G Larry]

Hey Bill!

Try this on for size.

The highest ever Federal Income Tax revenue occurred in 2007, under the Bush Tax Cuts!

The revenue reached those heights because the cost of doing business was near optimal, and those tax levels ENCOURAGED PRODUCTIVITY, INVESTMENT, AND CONSUMPTION.

When the Federal Income Tax is either 0% or 100%, the resulting revenue is ZERO!

As Art Laffer points out, there is an optimal level, somewhere in between.
The Bush Tax levels were very close to that optimum.

[Hardastarboard]

Anybody want to bet that Bill Clinton couldn’t explain the theory of supply and demand in even the most basic terms, nor how taxes affect demand, even if his life literally depended on it?

[Hardastarboard]

Anybody want to bet that Bill Clinton couldn’t explain the theory of supply and demand in even the most basic terms, nor how taxes affect demand, even if his life literally depended on it?

[The Great RJ]

It's easy to explain: GDP=C+I+x+G where C is consumer spending on goods and services, I is capital investment, X is net exports (exports minus imports..currently negative) and G government spending. Liberals follow the idea from John Maynard Keynes that increasing government spending creates an economic multiplier...one dollar of new spending yields more than one dollar in economic activity. This has two problems..Keynes himself said the economic multiplier could be zero and evidence that it exists in the way liberals want is nebulous at best. The source of the government spending has also to be considered. Governments get their money from either taxation or borrowing. Increasing taxes decreases Consumption as consumption is based on after tax disposable income. Borrowing creates a crowding out effect diverting investment from capital expansion to the purchase of government debt. If there is no economic multiplier then increased government spending decreases GDP. Putting more money into the hands of consumers by reducing taxes drives aggregate demand and spurs economic expansion and thus raises GDP. This video debunks Keynes multiplier.

[central_va]

Repeal the 16th and cut taxes to zero. Let FedGov™ print what they want. Then it will be a fair race between the productive and the losers.

[Son House]

I like that. And why is Bill giving Republicans advice?

[Maceman]

It’s very simple: If you’re not getting a tax cut, you’re getting a pay cut. End of story.

[Terry Mross]

Republicans should shout JOHN KENNEDY! There’s your explanation.” Kennedy is the president Clinton worshipped so much and screwed his friend so he could shake Kennedy’s hand when he was 18.

[jersey117]

He should go go hell and take his entire rat party with him. I’m so sick of these people.

[clearcarbon]

Bill Clinton: Republicans Can’t Explain How Tax Cuts Help

Now that he's depleted nearly all of his brain cells there's not much point trying to explain anything to slick willy. Otherwise, he might be surprised to discover that he'd be enabled to smoke a lot more of the cigars he's given if they were not reallocated to applications for which they were not originally intended.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Get real. If Bill lets you keep your own money, what could he give to other people to entice them to vote for him. Do you expect him to use his own money?