More Politics stuff I don't get...

[devist8me]

Bare with me...

I was talking politics a few months ago with someone who knows much more about it than I do. Specifically, how Obama raising taxes on the richer population would not work and why.

He said that many years back, another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich to pay off debts in certain areas. The rich ended up moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed. This moved large amounts of money out of the U.S.

Then came the depression. I apologize that I don't have names or dates, but does any of this ring a bell?

And if so, if Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, won't another depression happen?

[spot]

It all sounds entirely made up to me, I've not read anything like that in any history book.

[devist8me]

spot;1050293 wrote: It all sounds entirely made up to me, I've not read anything like that in any history book.


Dang!

[Galbally]

devist8me;1050288 wrote: Bare with me...

I was talking politics a few months ago with someone who knows much more about it than I do. Specifically, how Obama raising taxes on the richer population would not work and why.

He said that many years back, another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich to pay off debts in certain areas. The rich ended up moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed. This moved large amounts of money out of the U.S.

Then came the depression. I apologize that I don't have names or dates, but does any of this ring a bell?

And if so, if Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, won't another depression happen?


The last depression didn't happen because of taxing the rich, though over-taxing wealth is not usually a very productive idea; however, over-taxing the poor is also not a very clever idea either. The last great depression happened for exactly the reason that the coming depression is going to happen, the creation of an asset and credit bubble based on irrational greed and overconfidence about risk. That was not the result of what poor people did, as they have no power to control events, they are passive; its the people who make decisions that are responsible.

This idea that "you shouldn't tax the rich, because that will just make them angry" is obviously spurious; no one should be above the law in relation to their responsibility to contribute to society, whether they are rich or not. Also, the idea (trickle down as its called) that if you give rich people everything they want, they will throw more gold coins out of the carraige windows as they rise past the peasants in the muck, is a deeply corrosive one, to me anyway, (I being one of the many peasants). If I had a gilded carraige perhaps I would think differently.

In terms of money being "spirited" away over seas, there is going to be a meeting next week in Washington, between the US, the EU, China, Russia, Japan, and just about everyone else who has money or oil in the world. They are going to re-order global finance (or try, or pretend to try), one of the things being mentioned is an end to tax havens, and co-ordinating national and region regulations to stop people taking advantage of global capital markets and taking their money out of their country when it doesn't suit them............. a capital idea if it can be done practically says I.

[wildhorses]

devist8me;1050288 wrote: Bare with me...

I was talking politics a few months ago with someone who knows much more about it than I do. Specifically, how Obama raising taxes on the richer population would not work and why.

He said that many years back, another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich to pay off debts in certain areas. The rich ended up moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed. This moved large amounts of money out of the U.S.

Then came the depression. I apologize that I don't have names or dates, but does any of this ring a bell?

And if so, if Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, won't another depression happen?


I was under the impression that moving money offshore was more recent than the depression era. The rich dont really spend a large percentage of their money anyway....they generally use it to make more money. They have it invested. So it does not feed the economy the way one would think. As far as I know this was not the cause of the depression to any significant degree.

[wildhorses]

Galbally;1050327 wrote: The last depression didn't happen because of taxing the rich, though over-taxing wealth is not usually a very productive idea; however, over-taxing the poor is also not a very clever idea either. The last great depression happened for exactly the reason that the coming depression is going to happen, the creation of an asset and credit bubble based on irrational greed and overconfidence about risk. That was not the result of what poor people did, as they have no power to control events, they are passive; its the people who make decisions that are responsible.

This idea that "you shouldn't tax the rich, because that will just make them angry" is obviously spurious; no one should be above the law in relation to their responsibility to contribute to society, whether they are rich or not. Also, the idea (trickle down as its called) that if you give rich people everything they want, they will throw more gold coins out of the carraige windows as they rise past the peasants in the muck, is a deeply corrosive one, to me anyway, (I being one of the many peasants). If I had a gilded carraige perhaps I would think differently.

In terms of money being "spirited" away over seas, there is going to be a meeting next week in Washington, between the US, the EU, China, Russia, Japan, and just about everyone else who has money or oil in the world. They are going to re-order global finance (or try, or pretend to try), one of the things being mentioned is an end to tax havens, and co-ordinating national and region regulations to stop people taking advantage of global capital markets and taking their money out of their country when it doesn't suit them............. a capital idea if it can be done practically says I.


Yes Galbally, I heard this being discussed on talk radio the other day. Federal, State and Local tax revenues suffer as a result of this practice of "off shoring" money by the rich and they want to try to put a stop to it. And they may do it. They are pssd off at the money guys for taking down the whole financial system and creating a melt down. I think governments want to teach them a lesson, so they are going to start reigning them in, in every way they can manage.

[Galbally]

wildhorses;1050329 wrote: Yes Galbally, I heard this being discussed on talk radio the other day. Federal, State and Local tax revenues suffer as a result of this practice of "off shoring" money by the rich and they want to try to put a stop to it. And they may do it. They are pssd off at the money guys for taking down the whole financial system and creating a melt down. I think governments want to teach them a lesson, so they are going to start reigning them in, in every way they can manage.


Yes, in general I am all for it, though I don't want to just penalize people for being wealthy or having wealth as thats not morally right, and also it doesn't make economic sense. I think to be honest that global capitalism has gotten completely out of control and beyond the ability of governments to do much about in the recent past. In an age where trillions of dollars can be moved instantaneously from Seattle to Shanghai, and then in the next 5 minutes from Shanghai to St Petersburg, its obvious that governments are finding it increasingly difficult to have any control over what is happening.

The situation now, obviously, gives them a chance to regroup as governments, and try and institute new frameworks, that allow them to reign in some of the more destructive forces at work in global capitalism, without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[OpenMind]

The use of the terms 'the rich' and 'the poor' can give rise to a false impression. Associated, I know, but it makes me think of grovelling poorly clothed beggars on the one hand and stiff-necked unsmiling fat bastards on the other.

The rich, I know are generous. They can afford to be. But they are people with feelings just like everyone else. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Naturally, like everyone else, they minimise their tax burden where they can. They will maximise the returns on their investments and if this means moving it elsewhere because of taxation policies, they will.

The government also has the option of raising stock and if the interest on that stock is attractive, then money will come to them that way. This, to me, seems a fairer way than just raising taxes which can be oppressive on the masses and just turn the wealth away.

Higher taxes do not of themselves cause depressions, but they will reduce people's spending power which, in turn, reduces profits and investment, so the economy will tend to slow down.

[Nomad]

I think $ arent taxed by what is actually in the bank but by what is earned by the individual so a person could send it to the moon but if they earned it they pay tax on it.

[OpenMind]

Nomad;1050404 wrote: I think $ arent taxed by what is actually in the bank but by what is earned by the individual so a person could send it to the moon but if they earned it they pay tax on it.


That's the same over here in the UK. But what's in the bank may be earning interest and interest is taxed. So it's best to find other places to stash the cash where the government can't tax the interest. It's all a game.

[spot]

Nomad;1050404 wrote: I think $ arent taxed by what is actually in the bank but by what is earned by the individual so a person could send it to the moon but if they earned it they pay tax on it.


You don't tax estates at death? I'm asking, I don't know - it's a major plank of wealth redistribution in England, that's all.

[G-man]

spot;1050481 wrote: You don't tax estates at death? I'm asking, I don't know - it's a major plank of wealth redistribution in England, that's all.


If any taxes were owed at the time of death by the deceased, then the taxes owed are deducted from the estate. If there is no gain to report from the deceased person's estate, then there will be no taxes to file. If the deceased is rather wealthy, then there could be estate tax. However, there are also methods of avoiding such taxes. In other words... it depends upon the individual circumstances.

[TheNewDG]

G-man;1050848 wrote: If any taxes were owed at the time of death by the deceased, then the taxes owed are deducted from the estate. If there is no gain to report from the deceased estate, then there will be no taxes to file. If the deceased is rather wealthy, then there could be estate tax.


There is also a capital gains tax, and inheritance and a windfall tax.

[G-man]

TheNewDG;1050859 wrote: There is also a capital gains tax, and inheritance and a windfall tax.


Correct, well inheritance taxes are any taxes owed by the deceased that are payed out of the estate, as previously mentioned... then of course, one can be taxed on the Federal and State level. More likely than not, however, you're going to be paying taxes! :p

[OpenMind]

Like they say. The only two certainties in life are taxes and death.

[G-man]

devist8me;1050288 wrote: Bare with me...

I was talking politics a few months ago with someone who knows much more about it than I do. Specifically, how Obama raising taxes on the richer population would not work and why.


Yeah. I don't advise telling that story anymore. :wah:

devist8me;1050288 wrote: He said that many years back, another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich to pay off debts in certain areas. The rich ended up moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed. This moved large amounts of money out of the U.S.

Then came the depression. I apologize that I don't have names or dates, but does any of this ring a bell?

And if so, if Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, won't another depression happen?


There are many schools of thought debating the causes of the great depression, but... this is the first I've heard of this one, however. Most theories involve a deflation in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand, debt deflation, disruption of trade, structural factors such as massive bank failures and the stock market crash of 1929 and even Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre-World War I parities.

[devist8me]

Thanks! Very helpful.

[Nomad]

spot;1050481 wrote: You don't tax estates at death? I'm asking, I don't know - it's a major plank of wealth redistribution in England, that's all.






If any taxes were owed at the time of death by the deceased, then the taxes owed are deducted from the estate. If there is no gain to report from the deceased person's estate, then there will be no taxes to file. If the deceased is rather wealthy, then there could be estate tax. However, there are also methods of avoiding such taxes. In other words... it depends upon the individual circumstances.

[spot]

Blimey, we live on different planets. English estate duty is paid on wealth, not capital gain. What an extraordinary degree of protection you Americans allow your hyper-rich.

Estate duty here, last time I checked, starts on all estate value in excess of $500,000 and it's paid at a flat rate of 40%.

[wildhorses]

spot;1050481 wrote: You don't tax estates at death? I'm asking, I don't know - it's a major plank of wealth redistribution in England, that's all.


Any estate worth 1.2 million or less is not taxed at all. In fact I think they have raised the limit, or are going to soon raise it I heard...to 2.5 million. Taxes owed by the deceased are paid before the money passes. What is left over is only taxed if it is over 1.2 million. Out of this you have to pay the probate court to process the estate if it is over 100 thousand dollars.

[spot]

Surely any and all debts are paid by the estate before duty is calculated, back-taxes included, just as all debts to the estate are collected. Taxes are on the net estate. You don't say what the tax rate is.

[wildhorses]

spot;1051424 wrote: Surely any and all debts are paid by the estate before duty is calculated, back-taxes included, just as all debts to the estate are collected. Taxes are on the net estate. You don't say what the tax rate is.


I am sorry spot. I cant remember what is was. My mom died about three years ago. The amount left was under the limit, so we had to pay no tax on the remainder. But if memory serves me right, I think it was about 30% when you add the various taxes. I think that is what our lawyer said. At the time the limit was 1.2 million limit that you would not have to pay tax on. But the estate would have to go through probate and you have to pay the probate court about 10%. And then if you hire a lawyer to do it, the lawyer can charge an equal percent. So the probate cost and the legal cost comes out of the net. But if the estate is 100,000 or less it passes through without going to probate...so it is free money. This was three years ago.

[BTS]

devist8me;1050288 wrote: Bare with me...



I was talking politics a few months ago with someone who knows much more about it than I do. Specifically, how Obama raising taxes on the richer population would not work and why.



He said that many years back, another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich to pay off debts in certain areas. The rich ended up moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed. This moved large amounts of money out of the U.S.



Then came the depression. I apologize that I don't have names or dates, but does any of this ring a bell?



And if so, if Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, won't another depression happen?


FDR really hurt the little man and prolonged the depression

The New Deal tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940 -$1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940- excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, excess profits taxes all went up, and FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. A number of New Deal laws, including some 700 industrial cartel codes, made it more expensive for employers to hire people, and this discouraged hiring.

Frequent changes in the tax laws plus FDR's anti-business rhetoric ("economic royalists") discouraged people from making investments essential for growth and jobs.

New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. FDR issued antitrust lawsuits against some 150 employers and companies, making it harder for them to focus on business. FDR signed a law ordering the break-up of America's strongest banks, with the lowest failure rates. New Deal farm policies destroyed food -- 10 million acres of crops and 6 million farm animals -- thereby wiping out farm jobs and forcing food prices above market levels for 100 million American consumers.



The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."



Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.



Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.



What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.



For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).



Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.



FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.



Mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR's own New Deal policies.

[spot]

So we're all agreed then are we, BTS? "another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich" is baloney, just like we said? "excise taxes often fell disproportionately on the less affluent", and "less affluent" is the opposite of "rich"?

[Accountable]

G-man;1050848 wrote: If any taxes were owed at the time of death by the deceased, then the taxes owed are deducted from the estate. If there is no gain to report from the deceased person's estate, then there will be no taxes to file. If the deceased is rather wealthy, then there could be estate tax. However, there are also methods of avoiding such taxes. In other words... it depends upon the individual circumstances.
Tax Law Changes for Gifts and Estates and Trusts



I'm not sure if an exception has been made, but large family farms used to be devistated by the death tax because the land itself was worth so much. Debtors would take whatever cash there was, then the son would have to sell off part of the farmland to raise the money to pay the taxes, which reduced the family's ability to grow enough crops to pay for operating the farm - which, of course, resulted in even more land being sold off the next generation.



The death tax, spot's beloved wealth redistribution, helped destroy one of America's finest institutions: the family farm.



Not that any of that matters now anyway. Most family farms are overtaken by the corporations that swept in to buy up that land like vultures picking at the carcass.

[spot]

Accountable;1051442 wrote: The death tax, spot's beloved wealth redistribution, helped destroy one of America's finest institutions: the family farm.What you call farmers we call the landed gentry and yes, we destroyed them as a power in the land. Very deliberately. They'd held their own for a thousand years.

[Accountable]

spot;1051453 wrote: What you call farmers we call the landed gentry and yes, we destroyed them as a power in the land. Very deliberately. They'd held their own for a thousand years.
No, putz. What you call farmers you call landed gentry. We are a different nation with different history. Our farmers came by their land very differently than how your landed gentry came by theirs.

[BTS]

spot;1051437 wrote: So we're all agreed then are we, BTS? "another president did this...this raising taxes on the rich" is baloney, just like we said? "excise taxes often fell disproportionately on the less affluent", and "less affluent" is the opposite of "rich"?


You say that like the ONLY taxes hiked were on the "less affluent"

FDR screwed business every chance he had at hand.





The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

WebMemo #327



There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.





Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich, the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.





1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.





The tax cuts of the 1920s





Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.





According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:





The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.





The Kennedy tax cuts





President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).





According to President John F. Kennedy:





Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, 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 enough profits¦ In short, 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 rates now.





The Reagan tax cuts





Thanks to “bracket creep, the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).





According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:





At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.





2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.





The tax cuts of the 1920s





The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.





The Kennedy tax cuts





Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.





The Reagan tax cuts





The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

****1% of the population was paying 27.5% of the overall tax******





Harmful Spending & Complexity





Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

[BTS]

Look what FDR took it up to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spot]

Accountable;1051463 wrote: Our farmers came by their land very differently than how your landed gentry came by theirs.
By theft from indigenous Americans, presumably, and backed in the process by the army and encouraged by whatever Washington administration was in power at the time.

[spot]

BTS, that first graph only makes any sense if you add the annual GDP. Surely you can see that. The implication you're trying to convey as it stands is just irrelevant to the facts.

As for the second, I've already said that whatever the US does internally is entirely its own affair, you can cap tax at 10% or at 100% for all I mind. I have an interest in the USA solely when it comes to foreign relations. I'm happy to discuss what you get up to but not to offer help, you're on your own.

What I'd do if I were involved is I'd stop people physically being in the US who didn't have an explicit right to be there. There are lots of ways to bring that figure under, say, 100,000 (to allow for the time between becoming illegal and being dealt with). The reason it's not happened is that it's entirely in the interests of Corporate USA for them to be there and there's pressure on government not to act effectively. At the same time I'd firm up Homeland Security and the Intelligence Services to the point where further outrages were effectively prevented. A third priority would be to prosecute all crime, a fourth would be to keep the all-now-legal residents of the nation employed and housed and fed. Don't they all sound like reasonable priorities? My tax strategy would be whatever achieved all those ends and I'd even leave it up to genuine financiers to decide for me how to do it.

The OP was long answered. The story's an untrue myth.

[Accountable]

spot;1051481 wrote: you can cap tax at 10% or at 100% for all i mind. I have an interest in the usa solely when it comes to foreign relations.

[BTS]

spotRe: More Politics stuff I don't get...

It all sounds entirely made up to me, I've not read anything like that in any history book.





Some homework for you:



Did the New Deal Work? - US News and World Report



High Taxes and High Budget Deficits

The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s



Tax Increases Won't Cure Federal Deficit



The Government and the Great Depression

[spot]

It's amazing how some people can't read the OP. It's a question of the cause of the depression, whether it was raised taxes for the rich leading to the rich "moving their money out of the U.S. into foreign accounts where it could not be taxed" after which "then came the depression". What have any of those links to do with the OP?