about this blog
- Brian Sullivan joined FOX Business Network (FBN) in April 2008 as an anchor. He co-anchors the 10am-12pm ET hours of the FOX Business block.
Prior to joining FBN, Sullivan served as an anchor for Bloomberg Television where he hosted the programs Morning Call and In Focus.
most popular posts
-
- There are no viewed posts at this time.
Subscribe to Comments
Tim
Most people forget that the 90 boom only came about from the new Industry Computers to the common man. where did all the R&D investment take place the 80's. Clinton lived off the lorals of the reagan/Bush years.
Frank
Don't let the facts get in your way Mike, During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. According to a 1996 studyfrom the libertarian think tank Cato Institute: On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. All of the above facts (and sources for the aricle) were found at Wikipedia.com.
Scott
Perhaps if they would simply read 'Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, they wouldn't be so shell-shocked. The parasites of need can not succeed without willing victims upon which to feed.
Tom H.
Great idea...tax the last group that has any disposable income to buy those high end items or invest in the stock market...that will help the economy (please insert heavy sarcasm). I'm waiting for some savy foreign country to offer easy citizenship and low taxes....we will see an exodus of the wealthy....suprised that we haven't seen more corporations do the same. It's almost as if the administration and congress want to go down in history as the ones who destroyed America..........
mike t
Ronald Reagan had 50% income tax, Clinton raised taxes to 39% and the economy soared. So Brian your question at the end has already been answered by History.
Brett
To complete the cicle, consider the rest of the senario. Higher income levels prevail in mostley larger urban areas, giving a higher tax draw to fuel more social programs which attract or perpetuate a greater number of low-income and/or minority people who wish to take advantage of these programs. That leads to an even greater neeed for more resoures and personel , which in turn must be filled or cancelled. That combined voting block of low-income, minority and government expanded employment rolls tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat.....It is weaith redistribution on a local scale and the result of which can be seen by the condition of these state and local governments. California and L.A. county are textbook examples of why progressive socialism does not work.
Sid
Don't forget, the tax increase is also on capital gains, what many high earners collect versus "regular" income.
monkeyfurball
Good story, but we need more info here. The over $250,000 crowd (of which I am one of them in MN), comprise about 4% of the total population in the 15 States with the largest number of wealthy folks. Even if those folks all voted mostly Republican, which I assume is true, they are still a very small minority in their voting district and thus could not affect the outcome to any great degree.
Scott
Who is John Galt?