What do you see as a 'disgrace' to metal music? Why?

Kennedy cut the 90% tax bracket first. Obviously if you take a balanced budget, cut taxes and increase spending, you end up with a deficit, which with time turns into a substantial national debt. That doesn't say anything about the necessity of a 90% tax bracket today, let alone the viability in a world where dozens of industrialized nations compete with one another.

I mean it just depends where you apply that 90%. I sure as fuck wouldn't that to be the corporate tax rate nor would I want it to be set at too low of a level. The simple fact is America won't remain competitive if we allow education and environmental subsidies to be slashed as they always are first when the deficit worsens.
 
I mean it just depends where you apply that 90%. I sure as fuck wouldn't that to be the corporate tax rate nor would I want it to be set at too low of a level. The simple fact is America won't remain competitive if we allow education and environmental subsidies to be slashed as they always are first when the deficit worsens.

Sanders was specifically talking about income tax.

I don't know what you mean by "environmental subsidies". I'll assume that whatever they are, China doesn't have them and is in fact extremely competitive due to their absence. I'm not anti-environmental protection but it's usually a direct trade-off between that and trade/economic productivity. I don't know where you're reading that educational spending has been slashed, it's been on a rapid increase for decades now. Higher education in America is a sham anyways. Roughly a third of people that start never finish, a quarter of those that do finish do not see an increase in their income or the gain of any valuable skill, and ultimately it just hides the nation's inability to maintain historical highs in labor participation by keeping a percentage of the population out of the labor force for a few years.
 
How so? Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit doubled.

edit: the laffer curve also assumes a single bracket model

This is partially true but not entirely.

cbo_tax_revenue_0213.jpg


There was a dip in overall tax revenue due to Reagan's tax cuts but that wasn't everything. It barely even registers beyond noise in the grand scheme of things. Increasing spending in the military contributed a lot as well.
 
The emerging markets for alternative energies is the next cash cow imo. Not putting on emphasis on it would be missing out

My fault about education btw. That issue is more about fund allocation.

Then let the government reap the bennies when those alternative energies become ultra-profitable on their own merits without the need of government subsidies. There is merit in subsidizing alternative energy, but from an R&D and environmental perspective, not a profit-motive one.
 
This is partially true but not entirely.

cbo_tax_revenue_0213.jpg


There was a dip in overall tax revenue due to Reagan's tax cuts but that wasn't everything. It barely even registers beyond noise in the grand scheme of things. Increasing spending in the military contributed a lot as well.

I would hardly call a doubling of the deficit in five years "noise". The Laffer curve is riddled with flawed underlying assumptions regardless. Each party thinks it's on the favorable part of inflection.
 
I would hardly call a doubling of the deficit in five years "noise". The Laffer curve is riddled with flawed underlying assumptions regardless. Each party thinks it's on the favorable part of inflection.

I was referring to the dip in tax revenue as noise per that chart, meaning as a percentage of the GDP, it did not deviate that significantly from the average.

That doubling amounts to roughly $250b a year. Some of that was due to tax cuts, some of that was due to increased government spending. From 1980 to 1988 the federal government went from spending ~$1400b/yr to ~$1700b/yr, averaging an increased $50b/yr in spending per year.

86ef3ff23c581288d840b7b358c250cd.jpg
 
I was referring to the dip in tax revenue as noise per that chart, meaning as a percentage of the GDP, it did not deviate that significantly from the average.

That doubling amounts to roughly $250b a year. Some of that was due to tax cuts, some of that was due to increased government spending. From 1980 to 1988 the federal government went from spending ~$1400b/yr to ~$1700b/yr, averaging an increased $50b/yr in spending per year.

86ef3ff23c581288d840b7b358c250cd.jpg

Oh. Sorry, I wasn't viewing the trend the same way as you meant. Also, I totally forgot about the period of hyper-inflation in the 80s prior to Reagan.