Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Kennedy-Johnson Tax Cuts of 1964

JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 5:23:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I found quite a fascinating article in Slate (http://www.slate.com...) on the Kennedy tax cuts, which seeks to refute the claim made by many conservatives--Paul Ryan, who invoked Jack Kennedy during his 2012 debate with Joe Biden, is one of them--that Kennedy was a supply-sider. I'd like to know what the members of this site think, both of the article and of the impact and implications of the Kennedy cuts. If you have additional materials you'd like to provide, they would be useful, as well.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting article, but it strikes me as wrong for a couple reasons. First, it seems to incorrectly define supply side economics:

"Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. "

This is a common error. In fact, supply side economics is almost entirely about incentives. To the credit of the author of this article, he mentions supply side incentives later in the article suggesting he knows they are part of the argument, but his definition of supply side economics suggests that he doesn't understand how central incentives are to supply side economics.

The larger point is that, regardless of the intention, the actual tax cuts were distinctly supply side. The across the board cut in marginal tax rates is the classic supply side economic policy and was the central policy of Kennedy's tax plan.

It is very possible- if not likely- that Kennedy personally believed more in demand side economics than supply side. But, for whatever reason, the tax cuts ended up being a supply side policy. A supply side policy that seems to have worked, I might add.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
Interesting article, but it strikes me as wrong for a couple reasons. First, it seems to incorrectly define supply side economics:


"Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. "

This is a common error. In fact, supply side economics is almost entirely about incentives. To the credit of the author of this article, he mentions supply side incentives later in the article suggesting he knows they are part of the argument, but his definition of supply side economics suggests that he doesn't understand how central incentives are to supply side economics.

The larger point is that, regardless of the intention, the actual tax cuts were distinctly supply side. The across the board cut in marginal tax rates is the classic supply side economic policy and was the central policy of Kennedy's tax plan.

It is very possible- if not likely- that Kennedy personally believed more in demand side economics than supply side. But, for whatever reason, the tax cuts ended up being a supply side policy. A supply side policy that seems to have worked, I might add.

I don't see much of a distinction between what Greenberg wrote about supply-side and your characterization of it, to be perfectly honest. Boosting investment by way of a tax cut implies providing incentives to invest, does it not? I don't think he has to use the word "incentives" explicitly in his original denotation of supply-side to capture the essence of it.

As for the rest of your post, the article actually runs counter to what you're saying. First, the top marginal rate under Kennedy was only reduced to 70%. Second, though rates were cut across the board, benefits were not -- or, in a traditional across-the-board, Bush-style tax cut, standard mathematics tells us that the very affluent would receive the highest net monetary benefit. However, that was not the case. According to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue taxation at the time, benefits of the 1964 Revenue Act were dolled out as follows: 18 percent to the bottom 40 percent of income earners, 59 percent to the bottom 85 percent, 17.4 percent to the top 2.4 percent of income earners, and only 6 percent to the top 0.4 percent (http://www.cbpp.org...). This piece contrasts the Kennedy cuts to the Reagan and Bush cuts.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
Interesting article, but it strikes me as wrong for a couple reasons. First, it seems to incorrectly define supply side economics:


"Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. "

This is a common error. In fact, supply side economics is almost entirely about incentives. To the credit of the author of this article, he mentions supply side incentives later in the article suggesting he knows they are part of the argument, but his definition of supply side economics suggests that he doesn't understand how central incentives are to supply side economics.

The larger point is that, regardless of the intention, the actual tax cuts were distinctly supply side. The across the board cut in marginal tax rates is the classic supply side economic policy and was the central policy of Kennedy's tax plan.

It is very possible- if not likely- that Kennedy personally believed more in demand side economics than supply side. But, for whatever reason, the tax cuts ended up being a supply side policy. A supply side policy that seems to have worked, I might add.


I don't see much of a distinction between what Greenberg wrote about supply-side and your characterization of it, to be perfectly honest. Boosting investment by way of a tax cut implies providing incentives to invest, does it not? I don't think he has to use the word "incentives" explicitly in his original denotation of supply-side to capture the essence of it.

My reading of his characterization of supply side economics implied that he thought supply side economics was about "giving money" to rich people and corporations so they could spend it on investment. That is a common straw man used against supply side economics that is simply untrue. Perhaps he did understand that it is all about incentives and this was a misreading on my part. If so, I apologize.


As for the rest of your post, the article actually runs counter to what you're saying. First, the top marginal rate under Kennedy was only reduced to 70%. Second, though rates were cut across the board, benefits were not -- or, in a traditional across-the-board, Bush-style tax cut, standard mathematics tells us that the very affluent would receive the highest net monetary benefit. However, that was not the case. According to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue taxation at the time, benefits of the 1964 Revenue Act were dolled out as follows: 18 percent to the bottom 40 percent of income earners, 59 percent to the bottom 85 percent, 17.4 percent to the top 2.4 percent of income earners, and only 6 percent to the top 0.4 percent (http://www.cbpp.org...). This piece contrasts the Kennedy cuts to the Reagan and Bush cuts.

Supply side tax policy has nothing to do with how the direct, first order benefits of tax policy are distributed. Instead, it has everything to do with how a tax policy effects incentive.

More specifically, if a bill reduces marginal tax rates, that is supply side policy regardless of the distributional consequences.

Yes, tax rates were much higher back then, but, from a supply side perspective, moving from a really bad tax policy to a less bad tax policy is a good thing.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 1:23:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
Interesting article, but it strikes me as wrong for a couple reasons. First, it seems to incorrectly define supply side economics:


"Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. "

This is a common error. In fact, supply side economics is almost entirely about incentives. To the credit of the author of this article, he mentions supply side incentives later in the article suggesting he knows they are part of the argument, but his definition of supply side economics suggests that he doesn't understand how central incentives are to supply side economics.

The larger point is that, regardless of the intention, the actual tax cuts were distinctly supply side. The across the board cut in marginal tax rates is the classic supply side economic policy and was the central policy of Kennedy's tax plan.

It is very possible- if not likely- that Kennedy personally believed more in demand side economics than supply side. But, for whatever reason, the tax cuts ended up being a supply side policy. A supply side policy that seems to have worked, I might add.


I don't see much of a distinction between what Greenberg wrote about supply-side and your characterization of it, to be perfectly honest. Boosting investment by way of a tax cut implies providing incentives to invest, does it not? I don't think he has to use the word "incentives" explicitly in his original denotation of supply-side to capture the essence of it.


My reading of his characterization of supply side economics implied that he thought supply side economics was about "giving money" to rich people and corporations so they could spend it on investment. That is a common straw man used against supply side economics that is simply untrue. Perhaps he did understand that it is all about incentives and this was a misreading on my part. If so, I apologize.

No need for apology, haha. I think it does depend largely on how you read it, and I see it in both ways. It's even possible to make the argument that supply-side economics is about freeing up resources and allowing businesses to keep more of what they earn -- "giving them money" -- so that they can invest it and grow their businesses, with the additional money in their pocket as the incentive.







As for the rest of your post, the article actually runs counter to what you're saying. First, the top marginal rate under Kennedy was only reduced to 70%. Second, though rates were cut across the board, benefits were not -- or, in a traditional across-the-board, Bush-style tax cut, standard mathematics tells us that the very affluent would receive the highest net monetary benefit. However, that was not the case. According to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue taxation at the time, benefits of the 1964 Revenue Act were dolled out as follows: 18 percent to the bottom 40 percent of income earners, 59 percent to the bottom 85 percent, 17.4 percent to the top 2.4 percent of income earners, and only 6 percent to the top 0.4 percent (http://www.cbpp.org...). This piece contrasts the Kennedy cuts to the Reagan and Bush cuts.



Supply side tax policy has nothing to do with how the direct, first order benefits of tax policy are distributed. Instead, it has everything to do with how a tax policy effects incentive.

More specifically, if a bill reduces marginal tax rates, that is supply side policy regardless of the distributional consequences.

Yes, tax rates were much higher back then, but, from a supply side perspective, moving from a really bad tax policy to a less bad tax policy is a good thing.

I suppose I disagree with you as to what qualifies as supply-side. You can make the case that the Revenue Act had supply-side elements to it, though they were largely seen as secondary at the time, but it was by and large a demand stimulus. My reading of it is, Kennedy's references to the "multiplier" effect was in reference to demand, not supply. Of course, as the article points out, he had to try to sell the plan to businesses, but that's a whole other story.

The main point is, his plan was significantly different from, say, those of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. I think, if anything, it speaks to the benefits of stimulating demand and deficit spending at a time of peril.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 2:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 1:23:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

I suppose I disagree with you as to what qualifies as supply-side. You can make the case that the Revenue Act had supply-side elements to it, though they were largely seen as secondary at the time, but it was by and large a demand stimulus. My reading of it is, Kennedy's references to the "multiplier" effect was in reference to demand, not supply. Of course, as the article points out, he had to try to sell the plan to businesses, but that's a whole other story.

The main point is, his plan was significantly different from, say, those of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. I think, if anything, it speaks to the benefits of stimulating demand and deficit spending at a time of peril.

Here's the wikipedia page for the 1964 act (which is surprisingly good::

http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the page:

" Individual income tax rates were cut across the board by approximately 20%. In addition to individual income tax cuts, the act slightly reduced corporate tax rates and introduced a minimum standard deduction"

and

"The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)
created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)"

It also reduced corporate tax rates. The centerpiece was a reduction in marginal tax rates.

That is actually very similar to Reagan's tax cuts and very dissimilar from any "demand side stimulus" package i have ever heard of.

The revenue act of 1964 seems like a textbook example of supply side economic policy... even if the president behind it didn't see it that way.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 4:19:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 2:34:53 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:23:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

I suppose I disagree with you as to what qualifies as supply-side. You can make the case that the Revenue Act had supply-side elements to it, though they were largely seen as secondary at the time, but it was by and large a demand stimulus. My reading of it is, Kennedy's references to the "multiplier" effect was in reference to demand, not supply. Of course, as the article points out, he had to try to sell the plan to businesses, but that's a whole other story.

The main point is, his plan was significantly different from, say, those of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. I think, if anything, it speaks to the benefits of stimulating demand and deficit spending at a time of peril.

Here's the wikipedia page for the 1964 act (which is surprisingly good::

http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the page:

" Individual income tax rates were cut across the board by approximately 20%. In addition to individual income tax cuts, the act slightly reduced corporate tax rates and introduced a minimum standard deduction"

and

"The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)
created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)"



It also reduced corporate tax rates. The centerpiece was a reduction in marginal tax rates.

That is actually very similar to Reagan's tax cuts and very dissimilar from any "demand side stimulus" package i have ever heard of.

The revenue act of 1964 seems like a textbook example of supply side economic policy... even if the president behind it didn't see it that way.

I think this is largely a difference of opinion, though there isn't a disagreement on the numbers. I see Reagan's cuts as significantly different, since he dropped the top rate from 70 to 28, and most of the benefits went to the affluent -- that is, he was willing to run a deficit on tax cuts to stimulate supply, while Kennedy's cuts actually resulted in a net revenue gain.

Also, let's not forget that Kennedy raised the capital gains and closed loopholes. He proposed about a $1 billion tax increase (or $1 billion at the time).

A good explanation, including audio from Kennedy, can be found here: http://www.youtube.com... watch?v=pxRnwnp9_fw (without the space)

And, to supplement the Slate article, here's another that says virtually the same thing, but takes an interesting angle in discussing how Kennedy sold the cut to the business community.

Ultimately, whether this was really a supply-side cut comes down to interpretation, but my understanding of it is that it stimulated consumer purchasing, which by and of itself stimulates investment. But a supply-side cut would have stimulated investment, not consumption. It's a bit hard to stimulate investment -- or to provide incentives for investment -- by raising the capital gains rate.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oops, I forgot the article: http://www.newrepublic.com...
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:59:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 4:19:04 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 2:34:53 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:23:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

I suppose I disagree with you as to what qualifies as supply-side. You can make the case that the Revenue Act had supply-side elements to it, though they were largely seen as secondary at the time, but it was by and large a demand stimulus. My reading of it is, Kennedy's references to the "multiplier" effect was in reference to demand, not supply. Of course, as the article points out, he had to try to sell the plan to businesses, but that's a whole other story.

The main point is, his plan was significantly different from, say, those of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. I think, if anything, it speaks to the benefits of stimulating demand and deficit spending at a time of peril.

Here's the wikipedia page for the 1964 act (which is surprisingly good::

http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the page:

" Individual income tax rates were cut across the board by approximately 20%. In addition to individual income tax cuts, the act slightly reduced corporate tax rates and introduced a minimum standard deduction"

and

"The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)
created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)"



It also reduced corporate tax rates. The centerpiece was a reduction in marginal tax rates.

That is actually very similar to Reagan's tax cuts and very dissimilar from any "demand side stimulus" package i have ever heard of.

The revenue act of 1964 seems like a textbook example of supply side economic policy... even if the president behind it didn't see it that way.

I think this is largely a difference of opinion, though there isn't a disagreement on the numbers. I see Reagan's cuts as significantly different, since he dropped the top rate from 70 to 28, and most of the benefits went to the affluent -- that is, he was willing to run a deficit on tax cuts to stimulate supply, while Kennedy's cuts actually resulted in a net revenue gain.

Also, let's not forget that Kennedy raised the capital gains and closed loopholes. He proposed about a $1 billion tax increase (or $1 billion at the time).

A good explanation, including audio from Kennedy, can be found here: http://www.youtube.com... watch?v=pxRnwnp9_fw (without the space)

And, to supplement the Slate article, here's another that says virtually the same thing, but takes an interesting angle in discussing how Kennedy sold the cut to the business community.

Ultimately, whether this was really a supply-side cut comes down to interpretation, but my understanding of it is that it stimulated consumer purchasing, which by and of itself stimulates investment. But a supply-side cut would have stimulated investment, not consumption. It's a bit hard to stimulate investment -- or to provide incentives for investment -- by raising the capital gains rate.

According to this link, the top capital gains rate stayed at 25% from 1954-1968, which suggests no change in the rate during the Kennedy presidency. The rate didn't rise until later in the Johnson presidency.

My belief is that the 1964 tax cut was an entirely supply side policy, even if the writers intentions suggest otherwise. This is because of the across the board cuts in tax rates.

But, tax cuts can be justified on both supply side and demand side grounds. My understanding, however, is that demand side tax cuts usually take the form of tax credits and one time tax refunds, such as Obama's demand side tax cuts.

Supply side tax cuts take the form or permanent or long term reductions in marginal rates. Kennedy's tax cuts took the form of permanent reductions in marginal tax rates.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:24:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 9:59:39 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 4:19:04 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 2:34:53 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:23:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 1:15:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 9:51:36 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 3/12/2014 12:11:22 AM, BigDave80 wrote:

I suppose I disagree with you as to what qualifies as supply-side. You can make the case that the Revenue Act had supply-side elements to it, though they were largely seen as secondary at the time, but it was by and large a demand stimulus. My reading of it is, Kennedy's references to the "multiplier" effect was in reference to demand, not supply. Of course, as the article points out, he had to try to sell the plan to businesses, but that's a whole other story.

The main point is, his plan was significantly different from, say, those of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush. I think, if anything, it speaks to the benefits of stimulating demand and deficit spending at a time of peril.

Here's the wikipedia page for the 1964 act (which is surprisingly good::

http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the page:

" Individual income tax rates were cut across the board by approximately 20%. In addition to individual income tax cuts, the act slightly reduced corporate tax rates and introduced a minimum standard deduction"

and

"The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)
created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)"



It also reduced corporate tax rates. The centerpiece was a reduction in marginal tax rates.

That is actually very similar to Reagan's tax cuts and very dissimilar from any "demand side stimulus" package i have ever heard of.

The revenue act of 1964 seems like a textbook example of supply side economic policy... even if the president behind it didn't see it that way.

I think this is largely a difference of opinion, though there isn't a disagreement on the numbers. I see Reagan's cuts as significantly different, since he dropped the top rate from 70 to 28, and most of the benefits went to the affluent -- that is, he was willing to run a deficit on tax cuts to stimulate supply, while Kennedy's cuts actually resulted in a net revenue gain.

Also, let's not forget that Kennedy raised the capital gains and closed loopholes. He proposed about a $1 billion tax increase (or $1 billion at the time).

A good explanation, including audio from Kennedy, can be found here: http://www.youtube.com... watch?v=pxRnwnp9_fw (without the space)

And, to supplement the Slate article, here's another that says virtually the same thing, but takes an interesting angle in discussing how Kennedy sold the cut to the business community.

Ultimately, whether this was really a supply-side cut comes down to interpretation, but my understanding of it is that it stimulated consumer purchasing, which by and of itself stimulates investment. But a supply-side cut would have stimulated investment, not consumption. It's a bit hard to stimulate investment -- or to provide incentives for investment -- by raising the capital gains rate.


According to this link, the top capital gains rate stayed at 25% from 1954-1968, which suggests no change in the rate during the Kennedy presidency. The rate didn't rise until later in the Johnson presidency.

My belief is that the 1964 tax cut was an entirely supply side policy, even if the writers intentions suggest otherwise. This is because of the across the board cuts in tax rates.

But, tax cuts can be justified on both supply side and demand side grounds. My understanding, however, is that demand side tax cuts usually take the form of tax credits and one time tax refunds, such as Obama's demand side tax cuts.

Supply side tax cuts take the form or permanent or long term reductions in marginal rates. Kennedy's tax cuts took the form of permanent reductions in marginal tax rates.

I checked out the figures from the Tax Policy Center, and you're right. Kennedy proposed a capital gains tax hike in the form of closing a loophole that allowed affluent people to hold onto their assets until death and thus avoid taxation. But his proposal was never passed by Congress.

And, again, I don't think merely cutting rates across the boards is synonymous with supply-side, especially when an enormous amount of the gains went to middle-income people -- unless, of course, the act of cutting taxes, ipso facto, is what creates incentives. The effect of the cut was spurring consumption, so I think it would qualify as a demand cut, but we'll agree to disagree on that, since we could argue the technicalities of it until we're both old and frail, haha.

As for Obama: that's a fair point. The Bush tax cuts that he extended, and in many cases made permanent, were supply-side, but the payroll tax holiday and a lot of the cuts in the stimulus would qualify as demand-side.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics