Go back
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Debates

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26754
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

This Act sent the nation into 10.8% unemployment, worse than the current recession. What went so horribly wrong?

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981

Critics claim the tax cuts worsened the deficits in the budget of the United States government. Reagan supporters credit them with helping the 1980s economic expansion[3] that eventually lowered the deficits. Supporters of the tax cuts also argue, using the Laffer curve, that the tax cuts increased government revenue. This is hotly disputed—critics contend that, although government income tax receipts did rise, it was due to economic growth not caused by the tax cuts, and would have risen more if the tax cuts had not occurred. Supporters see the growth as caused by the tax cuts. Controversy still remains as to whether the tax cuts of 1981 increased revenues.

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26754
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

It took a fairly steady 7.2% unemployment rate and launched it to 10.8% in a little more than a year. Look at the dramatic change right at that time:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

vistesd

Hmmm . . .

Joined
19 Jan 04
Moves
22131
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

“The ‘Laffer Curve’—appropriately named.”

—Comment by one of my long-ago econ professors.

The Reagan tax cuts were demand-side, despite all the “supply-side” (warmed-over “Say’s Law” ) rhetoric. However, businesses did not translate tax-cuts into increased investment in physical capital. Investment decisions by firms are demand-driven. To think that firms would increase productive capacity based on tax cuts alone—without regard to predicted demand for their products—is to assume that the managers of such firms act irrationally (hardly an assumption touted by the supply-siders).

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This Act sent the nation into 10.8% unemployment, worse than the current recession. What went so horribly wrong?
In general, the production of luxury goods takes less labour per $ of production than collective (government-funded) goods. Furthermore, luxury goods tend to require more imports than collective goods. So shifting production away from collective goods towards luxury goods will lower the amount of jobs available.

M

Joined
08 Oct 08
Moves
5542
Clock
13 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This Act sent the nation into 10.8% unemployment, worse than the current recession. What went so horribly wrong?
At the time, Fed Chairman Volcker was busy raising interest rates to sky high levels to get rid of the inflation problem. It did lead to a recession in the short-run, but over the long run, his idea worked.

t
True X X Xian

The Lord's Army

Joined
18 Jul 04
Moves
8353
Clock
14 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982

So pertinent and yet strangely unmentioned.

When you all figure out exactly what the federal tax multiplier is please let me know. There's a few hundred bright people still trying to pin it down.

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
Clock
17 Aug 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It took a fairly steady 7.2% unemployment rate and launched it to 10.8% in a little more than a year. Look at the dramatic change right at that time:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
ok, what was the mechanism?

do you fall on the ground trembling at every solar eclipse, crying "Woe! Woe!"?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.