He balanced the budget by attacking education and local govt funding, which has resulted in the loss of nearly 25k public sector jobs. Private sector jobs, OH has tracked with national stats, nothing bad, but not great either, and far from your claim of “significant economic growth.” OH is far from some stand-out compared to the rest of the nation. And the attacks on education will bear rotten fruit down the road.
I think you’re kind of just seeing what you want to see. There are always ways to spin anything to support your own views, but I think that it’s really hard to do it here and seem reasonable. The improvements in Ohio under Kasich as a result of his policy decisions cannot really be construed as imaginary. If they were, he wouldn’t enjoy such good approval ratings. 62% of Ohioans aren’t Republicans, dude. That means even Democrats are thinking that he’s done a good job. All the spin aside, most of the people living in Ohio think that his policies are improving things.
I have no idea what point you thought you were making with your last post though.
It was somewhat far afield. I was just pointing out that I think your description of Republican policy as being universally fantastical is kind of at odds with the successes that Kasich’s policies have enjoyed.
A quick google search reveals that in order for tax cuts to increase goverment revenues the top rate would need to be above 70%. Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 70% and that did increase revenue, but the major tax cuts from Reagan and Bush resulted in higher deficits
Again, I think you are making statements that really aren’t supported by evidence. You are taking specific statements and then over extrapolating. For instance, the idea that tax cuts could not increase revenues unless the to rate is over 70% is complete nonsense, and not even remotely supported. It seems to miss the key aspect of the discussion here.
A major component of tax revenues is not simply the percentage rate, but also the size of the economic base being taxed. Economic growth increases the tax base, which increases revenues. Thus, the ultimate goal, if you want to increase tax revenues, is to generate economic growth.
So then, regarding taxation, the question becomes how does taxation effect economic growth. Statements like these one you made amount only tax rates over 70% having an impact is silly because it presumes that the entirety of the tax code is the top rate. There are all kinds of modifications to the tax rate schedule which will have varying impacts on the economy.
Certainly at the top, it can argued that tax cuts may have limited, if any, impact. The extremely wealthy will not likely buy more stuff if you cut their taxes. There could be increased investment, but the impact is likely still going to be limited.
But lower down the rate schedule, lowered taxes can give people more money to actually spend in the economy.
There are other aspects which complicate things further. On the topic of corporate taxation, for instance. At the current rates, some of these largest companies simply dodge most of their tax liability by holding profits overseas, where they aren’t taxed by us at all. Virtually all of the really big corporations do this at this point, as they all have international operations that facilitate it. In these cases, if you can encourage them to bring those profits back to the US, you could potentially get more revenue, even at a lower rate. Of course, it’s more complicated than simply lowering the rate, as there are other countries with much lower rates already, so it would end up being a balancing act, given that you will also lose revenues from smaller corporations who now pay a lower rate. Of course, for smaller corporations, leaving them more money could have other economic benefits.
Ultimately, tax policy is not a simple thing. You can’t boil it down to statements like you’ve been making. There are a ton of variables at play, where simple ideology can’t give the answer.