NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
the loop holes that were eliminated when the tax rates were lowered?
That happened under CLINTON, REGAN, and KENNEDY....
I feel like I am repeating myself here...
Poor should have less fun, work harder.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
That happened under CLINTON, REGAN, and KENNEDY....
I feel like I am repeating myself here...
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You are repeating yourself
everything you say gets dumber and dumber
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
President Reagan lifted remaining domestic petroleum price and allocation controls on January 28, 1981,[SUP][6][/SUP] and lowered the oil windfall profits tax in August 1981. He ended the oil windfall profits tax. Reagan followed his 1981 tax cuts with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which sought to eliminate deductions, lower marginal rates for the wealthy, and significantly raise taxes on those earning less than $50,000[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.[SUP][9][/SUP]
With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to raise taxes on lower incomes, eliminate many deductions, and reduce tax rates on the wealthy. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code. Ultimately, the combination of the increase in tax rates on lower incomes and decrease in deductions raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue.[SUP][10][/SUP]
President Ronald Reagan signs the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 at his California ranch.
The primary effect of the tax changes over the course of Reagan's term in office was a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments. Federal revenue share of GDP fell from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before rising back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989. Personal income tax revenues fell during this period relative to GDP, while payroll tax revenues rose relative to GDP.[SUP][4][/SUP] President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover administration.[SUP][11][/SUP] This tax benefits the wealthy, however, in 1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent.[SUP][12][/SUP]
Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[SUP][13][/SUP] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[SUP][14][/SUP] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[SUP][15][/SUP] The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[SUP][2][/SUP] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[SUP][2][/SUP] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[SUP][16][/SUP] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[SUP][17][/SUP] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[SUP][18][/SUP]
According to William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70.1% to 28.4%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment". Roger Porter, another architect of the program, acknowledges that the program was weakened by the many hands that changed the President's calculus, such as Congress.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] President Reagan, has remained popular as an antitax hero despite raising taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.[SUP][20][/SUP] Reagan ultimately raised taxes more times than he cut them.[SUP][21][/SUP] According to Paul Krugman, "Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase."[SUP][9][/SUP] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.[SUP][22][/SUP]
With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to raise taxes on lower incomes, eliminate many deductions, and reduce tax rates on the wealthy. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code. Ultimately, the combination of the increase in tax rates on lower incomes and decrease in deductions raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue.[SUP][10][/SUP]
President Ronald Reagan signs the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 at his California ranch.
The primary effect of the tax changes over the course of Reagan's term in office was a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments. Federal revenue share of GDP fell from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before rising back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989. Personal income tax revenues fell during this period relative to GDP, while payroll tax revenues rose relative to GDP.[SUP][4][/SUP] President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover administration.[SUP][11][/SUP] This tax benefits the wealthy, however, in 1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent.[SUP][12][/SUP]
Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[SUP][13][/SUP] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[SUP][14][/SUP] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[SUP][15][/SUP] The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[SUP][2][/SUP] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[SUP][2][/SUP] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[SUP][16][/SUP] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[SUP][17][/SUP] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[SUP][18][/SUP]
According to William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70.1% to 28.4%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment". Roger Porter, another architect of the program, acknowledges that the program was weakened by the many hands that changed the President's calculus, such as Congress.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] President Reagan, has remained popular as an antitax hero despite raising taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.[SUP][20][/SUP] Reagan ultimately raised taxes more times than he cut them.[SUP][21][/SUP] According to Paul Krugman, "Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase."[SUP][9][/SUP] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.[SUP][22][/SUP]
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Yes, and it still has apparently not gotten down to your level of comprehension yet...
HIGH TAXES BAD FOR GROWTH. LOW TAXES GOOD FOR GROWTH.
Next I might have to draw you a picture...
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Thats why Clinton Raised taxes and the fastest growth we have ever seen was in the 90s
Correct?
ink the world
Well-Known Member
History disagrees with you.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
History tells a very different story, but fuck history. I mean, it's not fact... right?
I dare you to find proof that the whole trickle down effect has ever worked. It didn't work for Reagan, didn't work for Bush and it isn't going to work for mittens. How many times does history have to repeat itself for people to open their fucking eyes?
Corrupted[]Canabis
Member
Yes it seems the fat has finally made it into the skull, thus pushing the brain against the boney wall.
I am just wondering, are any of the people pimping Obama actually considered "middle-class"?
It sure doesnt seem like it. Looks like a bunch of part-time, relying on other people to pay their way, minimalists begging for hand-outs.
I fall squarely in middle-class. I am actually one of those paying to take care of your lazy asses and I dont like it at all. Go get a full time job lay-abouts and stop depending on your momma's and girlfriend's welfare checks.
It sure doesnt seem like it. Looks like a bunch of part-time, relying on other people to pay their way, minimalists begging for hand-outs.
I fall squarely in middle-class. I am actually one of those paying to take care of your lazy asses and I dont like it at all. Go get a full time job lay-abouts and stop depending on your momma's and girlfriend's welfare checks.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
lol so you assume everyone is unemployed or working part time? It scares me when I realize you're an actual person typing that ignorance.
I have to agree with you here. It just doesn't make sense, if these progressive slugs were making a good living for themselves, they wouldn't be on this political forum whining and attacking the wealthy. Who in their right mind would be advocating higher tax rates unless that person is getting something out of it or knows they will never achieve a thing on their own.
Isn't it ironic that everyone of them are self proclaimed intellects, yet somehow social mobility is out of their reach!
But hey, "it's for the common good of others" right? LOL
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
When you have a Country as big as it is with as many people in it as we have. You're going to have to raise taxes on someone. Be it the people who are barley scraping by or the people who aren't. Our Govt. has grown too large(blame Democrats without looking at the history is GENIUS) They eat up tax dollars like no tomorrow, you can't have Govt. be this big then expect everyone to get tax breaks and everything keep running along smoothly. Truly cut Govt. spending (also cuts peoples jobs) isn't the fix all solution.
In the end. There is no real solution to our problem. One day our system will come to a screeching halt. We are not sustainable. It's impossible. The whole Republican vs. Democrat debacle is just buying time until it happens. You claim to be intelligent then you should know this. If you argue against this you might want to pull out a mirror, because the ignorant person is in the reflection.
I beg to differ, without a current solution to the problem, ignorance would be voting against my best interest.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
You seem to think there is a solution for every problem. One would like to hope so, but hope is a bit foolish. I hope people will pull their head out of their asses, doesn't mean it will ever happen. You are hoping one day the Government will stop fucking around and fix this shit storm. It's no different my friend. You go ahead and put your faith in a bunch of corrupt politicians, it's worked out so far hasn't it?
Bottom line. Nobody likes to pay taxes. Someone has to pay taxes so long as we are under this type of Governing system. Complaining about it won't change anything, if you're that upset about it. Give away your fortune and work at McDonalds.
You can NOT have a system that will please everyone. It is impossible. Humanity at it's current stage does not allow it. Someone WILL be upset that the next guy is paying less for this or he has this or that. You can not please everyone. So why even try? Best solution is to try to stay afloat as long as possible until you kill over.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
Really, you seem to be upset that 50% of Americans pay no taxes where as someone else has to pay 26% federal then 9% on top for state tax. So what's your solution? Everyone pay 35% off their income? Sure.. I made $25k last year 35% off that they're left with $16,250. That's without paying into SS, health insurance and all of that hoopla. Let's just pretend for a minute that doesn't exist for arguments sake. I made 200k last year so, all things being fair I have to pay 35% as well. I'm left with $130,000. Assuming everything is the same, gas prices, food, entertainment yada yada. 130k is still a lot more than 25k, I'm not saying a person who is banking 130k a year should care about a person making 25k, but isn't that the entire argument? The ones higher up don't WANT to pay the taxes, they want the people who make much much less to CARE and tax some of the tax burden off them. Either way you want someone to take the burden off you. Neither of which is fair. So what's your solution? Everyone pay the same or nobody pays taxes?
Assuming no one pays taxes then you'd see the highway system crumble, public school be even worse than it is now, fire fighters gone, police gone. Shall I go on?
This is my point. There isn't a PERFECT solution. You can not have one. So what do you do? You please the majority(because the majority of Americans are close to broke) is to raise taxes on the highest up.
You can say "well they need to get better jobs then they can afford to pay 35% just like me" Are you suggesting McDonalds workers should A: Quit and find a better job or B: Get paid the same as you. Let's go with A, who would flip your burgers? What about B? Well, that's not fair is it? He flips burgers while I have worked long hard hours to build my business, missed out on my kids growing up yada yada...
Republicans solution is illogical, Democrats solution is less illogical but still illogical. Why do you think we even have currency? We tried to be fair and trade amongst each other, that didn't work out so well.
So what's my point to all of this? Oh right, as long as we are the type of people we are there isn't a system we can create that will sustain us indefinitely. Short answer, We are the problem, Humanity.
Assuming no one pays taxes then you'd see the highway system crumble, public school be even worse than it is now, fire fighters gone, police gone. Shall I go on?
This is my point. There isn't a PERFECT solution. You can not have one. So what do you do? You please the majority(because the majority of Americans are close to broke) is to raise taxes on the highest up.
You can say "well they need to get better jobs then they can afford to pay 35% just like me" Are you suggesting McDonalds workers should A: Quit and find a better job or B: Get paid the same as you. Let's go with A, who would flip your burgers? What about B? Well, that's not fair is it? He flips burgers while I have worked long hard hours to build my business, missed out on my kids growing up yada yada...
Republicans solution is illogical, Democrats solution is less illogical but still illogical. Why do you think we even have currency? We tried to be fair and trade amongst each other, that didn't work out so well.
So what's my point to all of this? Oh right, as long as we are the type of people we are there isn't a system we can create that will sustain us indefinitely. Short answer, We are the problem, Humanity.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Ok, you dont seem to understand the difference between federal, state and local taxes.
We dont need to be having the federal government deduct taxes from us so they can cherry pick the pork projects they want to fund based on political expediency. The state governments are for the most part in charge of roads, schools, police, firemen, etc.
The federal government needs to cut tax rates, not raise them.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Equality is equality, flat tax across the board (including capital gains) with no deductions.
The person on the less money will be availing of public services more, no?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Try this at home
run up the credit card on shit you want
blame the wife for the bills when they come due
Cut the family expenses, only on your wifes stuff not yours
quit your job and take one that pays half as much
are you bills getting paid?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
When you say on capital gains
you just lost every single politician that backs a flat tax