Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-12-2018, 05:43 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Not only that, Whell conveniently fails to mention that Reagan also significantly raised taxes after deficits ballooned following his tax cut:

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988...

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime."


http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm
Yes he did. Net effect was lower taxes on the rich, paid for by the middle class and the working poor, who's FICA and Medicaid taxes increased sharply.
__________________
If things don't go right, go left!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2018, 06:53 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Not only that, Whell conveniently fails to mention that Reagan also significantly raised taxes after deficits ballooned following his tax cut:

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988...

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime."


http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm
Uh, no.


Top rate on regular income when Reagan took office was over 69%. When he left, it was 28%. Capital gains - you know, that tax that the rich guys pay - went from 23.7% in 1980 to 28% when he left.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-12-2018, 06:59 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 View Post
Yes he did. Net effect was lower taxes on the rich, paid for by the middle class and the working poor, who's FICA and Medicaid taxes increased sharply.
Uh, no.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-taxes-during/

Increases on Social Security and Medicare were largely on higher wage earners. However:

Some of the increases were modest in scope. And itís important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nationís GDP, went down during Reaganís presidency.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:04 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Uh, no.


Top rate on regular income when Reagan took office was over 69%. When he left, it was 28%. Capital gains - you know, that tax that the rich guys pay - went from 23.7% in 1980 to 28% when he left.
Read and learn, Grasshopper.

The Economic Recovery Act of 1981, also known as the Reagan tax cuts, was the biggest reduction in U.S. taxes of the past 70 years, possibly even the biggest ever. That much is reasonably well-known.

What is less well-known is that these cuts were then followed by a series of tax increases that, if you add them all together, were almost as big as or even bigger than the 1981 cuts, depending on the measure you use.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...s-of-1982-1993

According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually.

During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion in FY1981 to $2.85 trillion in FY1989. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...t_expenditures

The bottom line is that supply-side economics has never once delivered what conservatives have promised - that tax cuts pay for themselves and that tax cuts for the wealthy equally benefit the poor. There's no question that tax cuts and/or spending (both are considered tax expenditures by economists, BTW) can stimulate the economy. However, there's also no question that they add to the deficit when financed with debt. Republicans have sold gullible ideologues (i.e., people like you) the notion that that you can simultaneously reduce taxes and pay for additional spending by revenue generated by tax cuts. It's sophistry, plain and simple regardless of how appealing the idea of a free lunch is.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 02-12-2018 at 07:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:06 PM
Pio1980's Avatar
Pio1980 Pio1980 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 8,552
http://www.talkradio1370.com/.a/6a00...86cf695970d-pi
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Last edited by Pio1980; 02-12-2018 at 08:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:02 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Republicans have sold gullible ideologues (i.e., people like you) the notion that that you can simultaneously reduce taxes and pay for additional spending by revenue generated by tax cuts. It's sophistry, plain and simple regardless of how appealing the idea of a free lunch is.
Of course, one month does not a trend make, but OOOPS! We ran a SURPLUS in January.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...mt/mts0118.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:14 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Read and learn, Grasshopper.

The Economic Recovery Act of 1981, also known as the Reagan tax cuts, was the biggest reduction in U.S. taxes of the past 70 years, possibly even the biggest ever. That much is reasonably well-known.

What is less well-known is that these cuts were then followed by a series of tax increases that, if you add them all together, were almost as big as or even bigger than the 1981 cuts, depending on the measure you use.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...s-of-1982-1993
You do realize that you're mixing apples and oranges here, don't you? I'm talking about income tax rates on earnings. The the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changes actually did some things that liberals wanted, such as closing come loopholes favored by "the rich". That's why it was a tax law sponsored by Dems. What the TRA really was, IMHO, was a deal with the devil. Reagan wanted further tax law simplification and made a bipartisan deal with the Dems to get it. In typical lefty fashion, that law is now used like an albatross to hang around Reagan's neck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
The bottom line is that supply-side economics has never once delivered what conservatives have promised - that tax cuts pay for themselves and that tax cuts for the wealthy equally benefit the poor.
Except that no one is saying that. There you go, arguing with yourself again.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:44 AM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Except that no one is saying that. There you go, arguing with yourself again.
BS. That's exactly what supply-side dogma is. Moreover, you said much the same thing in support of the $1.5 trillion tax cut.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:25 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
BS. That's exactly what supply-side dogma is. Moreover, you said much the same thing in support of the $1.5 trillion tax cut.
No, I didn't. That was you putting words in my mouth. I guess you're starting to believe your own bullshit.

Go back and look at post 9 in this thread. There will need to be spending reductions. Trump is attempting to do what Reagan could not in obtaining these spending reductions. I've said that same thing in this forum in many threads. In fact, it has been YOU arguing in many threads that spending reductions are not possible.

We will need spending reductions, and such reductions are long overdue.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:52 AM
Pio1980's Avatar
Pio1980 Pio1980 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 8,552
Reagan and Graham-Rudman cut taxes on the backs of military dependents and retirees by renegening on contracted benefits.
I do not understand this love affair the military has with the Repub's and him. One of the reasons I don't vote for them.
It seems iirc the Dem's never tried to do that crap on us.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.