I'd like to see discussion of the issue instead of lowering the debate to
and "pussy" and "I win again".
It started as a serious discussion of the tax issue, let's go back to that. I can agree with both Iggy and Pariah on various aspects.
On the taxes thing, I do believe that tax receipts and economic growth occurred. And, it worked wonders for JFK. But, it is a pretty understandable outcome when you think of what the rates were at when he came into office. At some point, I'm not afraid to entertain the thought that maybe the plan loses efficacy. There may just be a line between "hey, a little extra money to invest" and "hey, look at this boatload of cash I'm swimming in". We may have crossed that line.
Thank you for acknowledging that dramatic lowering taxes was done by JFK as well, and is not the exclusive domain of Republicans.
And it worked under JFK, just as it did to a large degree under Reagan. My point in posting this article was to make a case for that downside of the boom under Reaganomics.
Capitalism is by nature "greed", or less judgementally, economic action motivated by self-interest. The point of the article is that if the tax laws were different, their self-interest would have been channeled back into economic investment, rather than into savings and personal wealth.
I don't think even the writer of the article regards capitalism as "greed", he just advocates tax law that pushes that "self-interest" into the type of investment that benefits the nation as a whole. "Greed" has become a class-warfare word that clouds the issue.
The issue is not that accumulation of wealth is bad. We have been a capitalist society
that works for most of our 200-plus years as a nation. Our founders clearly believed that "greed"/"self-interest" properly directed by a fair system is good.
The issue is how to structure (or restore) a system for capitalist self-interest, to create the best result for both individuals and the nation.
