Editing Supply-side economics (section)

=== Clinton years ===
{{main|Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration}}
[[File:Average US Federal Tax Rates 1979 to 2013.png|thumb|450px|The chart shows average federal tax rates paid by various levels of the income distribution. During the Clinton era, taxes on upper incomes were higher than during the Reagan era.<ref name="CBO 2013">{{cite web|date=December 4, 2013|title=The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010|url=http://cbo.gov/publication/44604|access-date=January 6, 2014|publisher=The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO)}}</ref> [[Paul Krugman]] argued how higher taxes on higher income persons, combined with higher job creation under Clinton, represented a counter-example of the supply-side tax-cut doctrine.<ref name="Krugman_Zombies17">{{cite news|date=April 24, 2017|title=Zombies of Voodoo Economics|newspaper=nytimes.com|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/zombies-of-voodoo-economics.html|access-date=March 6, 2020}}</ref> Krugman linked his own version of this chart to the preceding article, illustrating the average tax rate of the top 1%.<ref name="Krugman_TwitterChart">{{cite web|date=April 22, 2017|title=Twitter post: Tax rate chart|url=https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/855902141751238657|access-date=March 6, 2020|publisher=Paul Krugman}}</ref>]]

Clinton signed the [[Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993]] into law, which raised income taxes rates on incomes above $115,000, created additional higher tax brackets for corporate income over $335,000, removed the cap on Medicare taxes, raised fuel taxes and increased the portion of Social Security income subject to tax, among other tax increases.<ref name="CBO_1999">{{cite web|date=January 1999|title=The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal years 2000-2009|url=https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/106th-congress-1999-2000/reports/eb0199.pdf|website=cbo.gov}}</ref>

Economist [[Paul Krugman]] wrote in 2017 that Clinton's tax increases on the rich provided counter-example to the supply-side tax cut doctrine: "Bill Clinton provided a clear test, by raising taxes on the rich. Republicans predicted disaster, but instead the economy boomed, creating more jobs than under Reagan."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krugman |first=Paul |date=2017-04-24 |title=Opinion {{!}} Zombies of Voodoo Economics |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/zombies-of-voodoo-economics.html |access-date=2025-04-11 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

Supply-side economist [[Alan Reynolds (economist)|Alan Reynolds]] argued that the Clinton era represented a continuation of a low tax policy (from the 1980s):{{blockquote|In reality, tax policy was not unambiguously better in the eighties than in the nineties. The highest income tax rate was 50 percent from 1983 to 1986, but below 40 percent after 1993. And the capital gains tax was 28 percent from 1987 to [1997], but only 20 percent in the booming years of 1997-2000. On balance, there were good and bad things about both periods. But both the eighties and the nineties had much wiser tax policies than we had from 1968 to 1982.<ref name="Supply Side Economics After 30 years">{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307578425 |title=Supply Side Economics After 30 years, Presentation at Vanderbilt University  |date=23 January 2003 |access-date=5 March 2020}}</ref>}}