The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out

[MTAtech]

The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out.

This should be the final nail in the coffin of the right's theory that tax cuts and deregulation produce economic prosperity.

The NY Times ran this editorial.

Median household income last year was still 0.6 percent less than it was in 2000, when the last economic expansion peaked. Households led by someone 65 or under made an average of $56,545 last year — 3.4 percent less than in 2000.
...
The number of people living under the poverty line rose by 5.7 million since 2000, to 12.5 percent of the population. And the number of impoverished children increased to 18 percent.

Who would have predicted that cutting taxes on the rich wouldn't help the average Joe?

[tony_j15]

Kinda hard for it to work when your average moron goes in over his head to buy a house he has no business trying to own, so we bail him out along with paying for the Iraq war.

[The Real Bingo]

So you mean the population in poverty and income should never go down? Kind of like the prices of homes?

[MTAtech]

Bingo, the right's theory was that lowering taxes would bring in more jobs, higher incomes, etc. based upon the premise that taxes discourage work and effort. We've had the entire Bush years to show that it worked.

The data comparing 2007, which is the peak of the economic cycle, with 2000, which is pre-tax breaks, shows that we had more at work and higher incomes in 2000. That fatally discredits the theory.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Bingo, the right's theory was that lowering taxes would bring in more jobs, higher incomes, etc. based upon the premise that taxes discourage work and effort. We've had the entire Bush years to show that it worked.

The data comparing 2007, which is the peak of the economic cycle, with 2000, which is pre-tax breaks, shows that we had more at work and higher incomes in 2000. That fatally discredits the theory.

You must be smarter than all the economists out there because no one will connect only taxes to the state of the economy. There's more to job creation and poverty than taxes. Do you know for a fact that if Bush didn't pass his tax plan that jobs would have held steady or even increased...or that less people would be in poverty?

[MTAtech]

In previous economic recoveries, job growth and income grew faster. If the right's theory was correct, job growth and income growth should have been at least what it was in previous recoveries. Since job growth and income growth were slower than previous recoveries, the validity of the theory is undercut.

Many economists complained that tax-cuts are an inefficient method to stimulate the economy compared to other methods, such as public works.

[Pexster]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

You must be smarter than all the economists out there because no one will connect only taxes to the state of the economy. There's more to job creation and poverty than taxes. Do you know for a fact that if Bush didn't pass his tax plan that jobs would have held steady or even increased...or that less people would be in poverty?

Gee, Bingo, seems to me that taxes = no jobs has been the mainstay of your argumentation here for years. You mean to tell me that it's not true after all?

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

In previous economic recoveries, job growth and income grew faster. If the right's theory was correct, job growth and income growth should have been at least what it was in previous recoveries. Since job growth and income growth were slower than previous recoveries, the validity of the theory is undercut.

Many economists complained that tax-cuts are an inefficient method to stimulate the economy compared to other methods, such as public works.

Sure, jobs will increase if the government provides more of them.

And what's this "recovery" you're talking about? The country isn't out of the woods yet.

Originally Posted by Pexster

Gee, Bingo, seems to me that taxes = no jobs has been the mainstay of your argumentation here for years. You mean to tell me that it's not true after all?

It's not a perfect correlation, if that's what you're getting at.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Sure, jobs will increase if the government provides more of them.

I'm not talking about government jobs. Public works is public work usually provided by private contractors. Infrastructure is built by private companies.

The choice was to lower taxes or spend it to infuse the economy. If taxes are lowered, some would be spent; some would be saved and some would be spent out of the U.S. Obviously, spending it on needed infrastructure is more efficient from a stimulus perspective.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I'm not talking about government jobs. Public works is public work usually provided by private contractors. Infrastructure is built by private companies.

Which is provided by the government.

The choice was to lower taxes or spend it to infuse the economy. If taxes are lowered, some would be spent; some would be saved and some would be spent out of the U.S. Obviously, spending it on needed infrastructure is more efficient from a stimulus perspective.

If you're talking about the stimulus checks they sent out, I agree...it was a gigantic waste of money.