Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Secret" JFK Tax Cuts ^ | 5/12/2003 | Arjun B.

Posted on 05/14/2003 11:52:46 PM PDT by xagent

Democrats and the Kennedys are once again proving to be hypocrite fools suffering from the famous case of liberal amnesia. The controversy this time stems from John F. Kennedy in advertisements that support President Bush's new tax cut plan. Senator Ted Kennedy is fuming over JFK's name and image being used to support tax cuts, something he vehemently opposes. These ads in question compare the massive tax cuts of JFK to those of Reagan and Bush, and rightfully so.

This ordeal is only a small part of the larger problem; that modern day Democrats and socialists have hijacked the good name of John F. Kennedy. One of JFK's key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920's and 1980's, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years.

Pro-tax lobbyists claim that Kennedy's tax cuts were significantly different than the tax cuts of Reagan, and the proposed tax cuts of Bush. They claim that Kennedy's tax cuts benefited low-income families, while Republican tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. On the contrary, they are quite similar. To an extent, Kennedy's tax cuts benefited the upper and upper middle classes even more. By the time Kennedy took office, the top income tax rate had reached 94%. Kennedy originally asked for it to be reduced to 65%, but Congress slashed this down to 70%. During a speech, JFK stated, "the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth …reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Without a question, it is mostly the middle and upper classes that undertake risky purchases and investment. As expected, the tax revenue from the top 1%, the top 5%, and top 20% surged as a result of income growth from the tax cuts. Tax revenue from the rich increased from almost 12% in 1963, to 15% by 1966.

The tax cuts from Republicans are no different and produced the same results. Harding and Coolidge cut the top tax rate from 73% in 1921 to 25% by 1925, and the tax share from the rich soared from 44% to 78%. Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the highest tax rate from 70% down to 50% as part of his Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. His plan cut taxes across-the-board by 25% - this was not a tax cut solely for the rich. The top tax rate was further lowered to 28% in 1986. What resulted was the largest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States, and record lows for inflation and unemployment. Income tax revenue soared 16.3% from 1982 to 1989. Kennedy's own words concur this: "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 tax rates".

Apparently, it's fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush. To say that JFK's tax cut was any different is a blatant lie. In a way, Kennedy's tax cut could have benefited the rich even more. Any tax cut from rates as high as over 90% will have a much larger impact than a tax cut on tax rates from 20 through 50%.

Bush only plans to reduce the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 33%. Kennedy cut taxes for the rich by one-third. Bush's income tax cut is only a one-sixth reduction. Additionally, Bush's tax cut would return less than 7 cents on each dollar earned, whereas Kennedy's tax cut returned 26 cents on each dollar. These are facts conveniently left out by Ted Kennedy and other Democrats - that Kennedy too drastically cut taxes for the rich, and that Reagan's tax cuts were across-the-board and caused tax revenue to increase. The evil Republicans' tax cuts even propose an end to the marriage penalty tax and the tax on Social Security benefits!

Part of Ted Kennedy's argument is that Kennedy's tax cut returned less money to those earning above $300,000. Well, of course. During the 1960's, the size of the upper class was considerably lower. From population growth and upward mobility caused by the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan, the number of people earning as much is larger. Ted also fails to take into account the rising value of the dollar. A current income of $300,000 translates to $50,000 forty years ago. Neither did Kennedy curb federal spending or the national debt, possibly the most trivial and over-exaggerated economic concerns.

The only fundamental difference lies in the end to double taxation on dividends. Business income is already taxed through a corporate tax. When shareholders are paid this income as dividends, and taxed again, this double taxation discourages investment in the stock market, and for businesses to pay dividends to shareholders. And unlike forty years ago, the numbers and types of people invested in the stock market have skyrocketed. Regardless, the parallels shown in the pro-Bush tax cut advertisements are real. All three Presidents have passed massive tax cut legislation, including the infamous "tax cuts for the rich".

Ted Kennedy and his comrades in the Democratic Party have exploited the legacy of Kennedy. Being the relatives of one of the most popular Presidents, it is fairly easy to fool the public into believing them. However, their sole claim to any legitimacy is shattered by the fact that the very same tax cuts they are vocal opponents of, were not only passed, but also defended by Kennedy. The Kennedys and Democrats will go to great lengths to suppress this, as if they have the sole rights to an ex-President's public record, video footage, and words. It's extremely strong partisanship. Kennedy is a Democrat. They hate the fact that he cut taxes, so they conveniently hide that detail whenever they attack tax cuts. Kennedy is like Teflon when it comes to tax cuts.

Why do schools and the liberal media rarely, if ever, mention JFK's tax cuts, but readily focus on, and denounce the tax cuts of Reagan? Why do they only mention the boom of the 60's and its social programs, but never mention the positive aspects of the Reagan years? Could it be that the socialists only intend taxes to continually increase, and that any tax cut, that in any way helps the largest taxpayers, is only a "tax cut for the rich"? This thinking is what led to the 90 % tax rates that a member of their own party cut.

The advertisements in dispute are fully justified. One only needs to examine the true economic policy and beliefs of JFK. History is on the side of tax cuts - the same side of Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. If JFK had been alive today, it is likely he would have switched to the Republican Party. Actual quote from Kennedy: "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 profits." Yep, JFK was a supply-sider, one of those greedy, rich, white, [insert liberal buzzword here] politicians who likes to cut taxes.

John F. Kennedy - the last, and one of the few, good Democrats.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts; Unclassified; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 80s; acrosstheboard; bush; capitalism; congress; conservative; coolidge; cuts; debt; deficit; democrat; dividend; economics; economy; expansion; f; fiscal; gdp; george; gnp; gop; government; growth; incentive; income; inflation; jfk; john; kennedy; liberal; money; rate; reagan; reaganomics; republican; revenue; rich; ronald; services; side; social; spending; supply; tax; taxation; taxcuts; taxes; ted; unemployment; wealthy
An article I wrote for my site

SUMMARY: Ted Kennedy and Democrats are fuming over the use of John F. Kennedy in pro tax cut advertisements. The ads show footage and the words of JFK, who greatly reduced taxes, including a reduction from 91% to 70% for the rich. Why the JFK tax cuts were no different than Reagan's tax cuts, and the ones proposed by Bush. Why Democrats are so desperate to hide this.

Sets the facts straight

1 posted on 05/14/2003 11:52:47 PM PDT by xagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xagent
I wouldn't call the Johnson years "Golden" (especially after '65) but bump nonetheless.
2 posted on 05/15/2003 4:34:10 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xagent
The so called Democrats of today want this hid because they are not Democrats, they are Socialist.
JFK was the first president I voted for. My family were always Democrats up until Bill Clinton although after the Johnson revelations I am ticked at myself for staying that long.
The so called Democrat Party of today is not the Democrat Party of the 50s & 60s. The party has been taken over by liberals and socialst.Unfortunately in this country there are those who have been so brainwashed they only know to vote Democrat and do not have the sense to know the difference. I myself was duped for a long time and never noticed the change.
Party politics are killing America because it has become about winning and not principle and the caring for America.
It is all about power and greed and the more government, the more powerful they become and it brings us closer to a dictatorship.
3 posted on 05/15/2003 6:23:02 AM PDT by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I'M not sure there is anything such thing as "the good name of John F. Kennedy", the tax cuts notwithstanding.
4 posted on 05/15/2003 6:55:38 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The Democrats hate democracy. Ironic isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xagent; Sonny M; Liz; Howlin; ALOHA RONNIE; RonDog
Did JFK only cut the top marginal tax rate, or did he cut all the tax rates, or which rates did he also cut besides the huge top rate?


5 posted on 11/22/2003 4:51:13 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson