Fair taxation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS"

Yeah, that was awful. He pushed the rate from 5.35% all the way up to 6.2%. Just awful!

Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL

Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable

"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"


Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com

" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice




Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

lol, Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US. I'm sure those 'job creators' needed more income (at record low rates of 15%) and the Gov't got about 15% of what they would've IF the GOP hadn't decided to cut the tax bills!

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, OVER $2 trillion since Ronnie increased SS taxes to 'save' SS? LOL

Of course he also doubled the rate on the self employed, made SS income taxable

"The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act advanced the scheduled increases in the Social Security tax rate. For 1979-80, the rate increased to 10.16 percent, for 1981, the rate increased to 10.7 percent, and for 1982-1984, the rate increased to 10.8, or at least it was supposed to. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act – signed into law by Reagan in April of 1983 – increased the rate for 1984 to 11.4 percent, and kept it there until 1987. For 1988-89, the rate increased to 12.12 percent. The 1983 amendments – which Reagan signed – also mandated that the rate increase to 12.4 percent beginning in 1990. So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent – a 14.81 percent increase"


Reagan the Tax Raiser 8211 LewRockwell.com

" The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. "
Ronald Reagan and the Great Social Security Heist Dissident Voice




Weird, you can't refute the REASON Reagan did it was to hide the REAL costs of his tax cuts for the rich, you know my original posit? lol

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

 

[Boss]

Conservatives tried to tell you Global Warming was a load of socialist horse crap, and again... you've had to change the name to Climate Change just to keep from being laughed out of your own seminars.

Very few people deny global warming... Antropogenic global warming is another matter. I honestly hope you do not belong to the set of people who deny WG, because the evidence is overwheelming.

The evidence is overwhelming that it's not happening. There has been no warming the past 18 years. We're actually in a slight cooling phase. Does our planet get warmer and cooler? Yes, but we have very little impact on it.

View attachment 36221

Boss,
The rate at which glaciars melt has not decreased, on the contrary. Interesting chart though. In climate terms my only objection to the chart you present is that 5 years is too little time to produce a trend line. 10 years should be enough though.
The drought of CA seems to be related to that warming. Due to the infrastructure the impact has been very little . If the drought continues a couple of years more then we could speak of a very serious impact.

When you have some ice cubes in a glass with temperate water and start pouring hot water, the temperature will not rise immediately, but the ice cubes will start melting cooling the water, yet there will be a point when the amount of hot watter surpasses the amount of ice , then the water temperature will start to rise. Keep that image in mind. I may not change your point of view but I hope this image gives you another perspective.

The graphic I posted is made from an actual graph posted by a Warmer to show the correlation between rising CO2 and temps. I stated that their own data shows we have had no 'warming' for the last 18 years. The graph ends in 2009 because that is where their graph ended, we could extend it on out to 2015 and back to 1997 and the trend line would be virtually the same. The statistics show we are actually in a slight cooling trend, despite increases in CO2 levels.

Last year, our planet actually gained amount of sea ice. Several million square miles as a matter of fact. While we lost sea ice at the north pole, we gained sea ice at the south pole. This will fluctuate from year to year but there is certainly no alarming loss of sea ice happening.

Now you're smart enough to understand droughts can't be happening because of warming that isn't happening. Droughts happen for a variety of reasons unrelated to human activity. The same goes for hurricanes and blizzards.

The entire Global Warming agenda is being promoted by Socialists who seek to leach onto capitalism. Their enemy is not man-made CO2, it is capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, something that helped lose 600,000+ jobs in the US.

Cutting taxes to encourage repartiation of profits led to job loss? LOL!

Your Marxist book of economics sure has some stupid ideas.

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

Well, if we don't tax the money they earn overseas, they have no incentive to keep their earnings overseas. Idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore HOPING for ANOTHER GOP tax cut for Corps, lol

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

Well, if we don't tax the money they earn overseas, they have no incentive to keep their earnings overseas. Idiot.

"Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*"


Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

HONESTY. TRY IT


Offshore Corporate Profits: The Only Thing ‘Trapped’ Is Tax Revenue

These arguments are wrong. They are based on a faulty premise; these “trapped overseas” profits are neither overseas nor trapped. It is true that for accounting purposes, multinational corporations keep these dollars off of their U.S. books. But in the real world, the money is often deposited in U.S. banks, circulating in the U.S. economy, and available for a wide variety of domestic investments. For nearly all practical purposes, that money is already here, being put to work in the U.S. economy.

Offshore Corporate Profits The Only Thing Trapped Is Tax Revenue Center for American Progress


US AFTER TAX CORP PROFITS SHARE OF GDP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, it helped because Corps chose to offshore MORE jobs and profits offshore

Cutting the taxes on offshore, repatriated profits helped corporations move more profits offshore?
But your link showed they brought profits home.
Are you posting links that disagree with your claims again? That's funny!

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

Well, if we don't tax the money they earn overseas, they have no incentive to keep their earnings overseas. Idiot.

"Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*"


Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

HONESTY. TRY IT


Offshore Corporate Profits: The Only Thing ‘Trapped’ Is Tax Revenue

These arguments are wrong. They are based on a faulty premise; these “trapped overseas” profits are neither overseas nor trapped. It is true that for accounting purposes, multinational corporations keep these dollars off of their U.S. books. But in the real world, the money is often deposited in U.S. banks, circulating in the U.S. economy, and available for a wide variety of domestic investments. For nearly all practical purposes, that money is already here, being put to work in the U.S. economy.

Offshore Corporate Profits The Only Thing Trapped Is Tax Revenue Center for American Progress


US AFTER TAX CORP PROFITS SHARE OF GDP

Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'?

Because we're the only major economy that tries to tax those foreign earnings.
And corporations can avoid the tax by never bringing the money home.

 

[initforme]

IF a company wants to go poverseas that's fine with me as I know they can do business over there without paying a decent wage. But then they should take a pledge of allegiance to that country.

 

[Boss]

Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

I don't know about voodoo or Google and Apple, etc.... But if I build a company in Germany, hire German workers, use German resources, produce a product in Germany, sell it to German consumers and put the money in a German bank... where do you get the goofy notion the US is entitled to collect taxes on that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Reagan was responsible for raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent

I know, just awful!

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

Right wing Mises, lol

Mises Daily Mises Institute

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

If you get a chance, and a brain, let me know how much these average people made and how Reagan's tax cuts actually increased their taxes. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

Oh you don't know the difference of tax burden versus TAX RATES... shocking

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird you don't know the top tax rate was cut under Dubya that lasted 10 years? In FACT the EFFECTIVE tax rates of the 'job creators' haven't had aa sustained low rate like this since before the GOP great depression of the 1920's

Still looking for info on Bush's huge rate cut?
Still trying to subtract his final rate from his initial rate? LOL!
I'll give you a hint, the top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%.

Wow, that was a massive cut, more than any rate cut before.
Makes Reagan's 70% down to 28% cut look like chicken feed. Moron.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird you don't know, or more likely just being the usual dishonest guy you are, that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

Well, if we don't tax the money they earn overseas, they have no incentive to keep their earnings overseas. Idiot.

"Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*"


Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

HONESTY. TRY IT


Offshore Corporate Profits: The Only Thing ‘Trapped’ Is Tax Revenue

These arguments are wrong. They are based on a faulty premise; these “trapped overseas” profits are neither overseas nor trapped. It is true that for accounting purposes, multinational corporations keep these dollars off of their U.S. books. But in the real world, the money is often deposited in U.S. banks, circulating in the U.S. economy, and available for a wide variety of domestic investments. For nearly all practical purposes, that money is already here, being put to work in the U.S. economy.

Offshore Corporate Profits The Only Thing Trapped Is Tax Revenue Center for American Progress


US AFTER TAX CORP PROFITS SHARE OF GDP

Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'?

Because we're the only major economy that tries to tax those foreign earnings.
And corporations can avoid the tax by never bringing the money home.

Cool, KEEP THEM OFF SHORE. NO MORE AMNESTY!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

Oh you don't know the difference of tax burden versus TAX RATES... shocking

Please, feel free to enlighten me.
Be sure to mention the 0.8% hike in Social Security. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that since Dubya's/GOP tax amnesty at 5% over $2+ MORE trillion has been off shored, lol

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate worldwide taxation of American firms.

Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*

Well, if we don't tax the money they earn overseas, they have no incentive to keep their earnings overseas. Idiot.

"Yeah, THAT would solve everything *shaking head*"


Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

HONESTY. TRY IT


Offshore Corporate Profits: The Only Thing ‘Trapped’ Is Tax Revenue

These arguments are wrong. They are based on a faulty premise; these “trapped overseas” profits are neither overseas nor trapped. It is true that for accounting purposes, multinational corporations keep these dollars off of their U.S. books. But in the real world, the money is often deposited in U.S. banks, circulating in the U.S. economy, and available for a wide variety of domestic investments. For nearly all practical purposes, that money is already here, being put to work in the U.S. economy.

Offshore Corporate Profits The Only Thing Trapped Is Tax Revenue Center for American Progress


US AFTER TAX CORP PROFITS SHARE OF GDP

Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'?

Because we're the only major economy that tries to tax those foreign earnings.
And corporations can avoid the tax by never bringing the money home.

Cool, KEEP THEM OFF SHORE. NO MORE AMNESTY!!!!!

Cool, KEEP THEM OFF SHORE. NO MORE AMNESTY!!!!!

I agree, less money for Obama to spend.

 

[Dad2three]

I guess the EXTRA $2+ TRILLION it raised and was spent the past 30+ years to hide Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, don't really matter right? lol

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Why should the US forgo revenues Corps made 'off shore'? Like Google, Apple, etc who use VOODOO (something the right should know about) to off shore money as IF it was made off shore,lol

I don't know about voodoo or Google and Apple, etc.... But if I build a company in Germany, hire German workers, use German resources, produce a product in Germany, sell it to German consumers and put the money in a German bank... where do you get the goofy notion the US is entitled to collect taxes on that?

Yeah, because THAT'S how it works *shaking head*

Many large U.S.-based multinational corporations avoid paying U.S. taxes by using accounting tricks to make profits made in America appear to be generated in offshore tax havens—countries with minimal or no taxes. By booking profits to subsidiaries registered in tax havens, multinational corporations are able to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year. These subsidiaries are often shell companies with few, if any employees, and which engage in little to no real business activity.

...Approximately 64 percent of the companies with any tax haven subsidiaries registered at least one in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands—two notorious tax havens.


...
Six percent of Fortune 500 companies account for over 60 percent of the profits reported offshore for tax purposes. These 30 companies with the most money offshore—out of the 287 that report offshore profits—collectively book $1.2 trillion overseas for tax purposes.

Only 55 Fortune 500 companies disclose what they would expect to pay in U.S. taxes if these profits were not officially booked offshore. All told, these 55 companies would collectively owe $147.5 billion in additional federal taxes.



Offshore Shell Games 2014 CTJReports

ANOTHER of your talking points demolished!

 

[Dad2three]

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

Oh you don't know the difference of tax burden versus TAX RATES... shocking

Please, feel free to enlighten me.
Be sure to mention the 0.8% hike in Social Security. LOL!

Already did. Can't help it if you are being willfully ignorant

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined


But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.


Mises Daily Mises Institute

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, raising the rate from 10.8 percent to 12.4 percent. Just awful!

I guess $2+ trillion in new revenues from the middle class didn't matter, AS Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich were in place, lol

I know, Reagan's tax cuts for everyone were just awful. LOL!

Everyone? lol

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.



Right wing Mises, lol



Mises Daily Mises Institute

Everyone?

Everyone!

In 1980, Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $3,400-$5,500 were taxed at 14%
$5,500-$7,600 were taxed at 16%
$7,600-$11,900 were taxed at 18%
$11,900-$16,000 were taxed at 21%
$20,200-$24,600 were taxed at 28%
$24,600-$29,900 were taxed at 32%
$29,900-$35,200 were taxed at 37%
$35,200-$45,800 were taxed at 43%
$45,800-$60,000 were taxed at 49%
$60,000-$85,600 were taxed at 54%
$85,600-$109,400 were taxed at 59%
$109,400-$162,400 were taxed at 64%

In 1988 Married Filing Jointly
Wages from $0-$29,750 were taxed at 15%
Wages over $29,750 were taxed at 28%

Clearly the cuts on the bottom end were offset by a 0.8% increase in Social Security taxes on individuals. LOL!

You've convinced me, rates for the bottom 90% were steadily rising until Reagan took office.
And thanks for the illustration of the Bush tax cuts across the spectrum.