Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
Samuel Butler
The way the most professional liars spin their web of deceit is to tell just enough truth and then shut up! They know CON$ are too STUPID to know what was left out no matter how obviously important the missing data is.
The reason the top earners paid more taxes after their rates were cut was because their income increased more, but that entire rant never mentions any changes in income.
Also, isn't it interesting to note that when the CBO supports the CON$ it is fair and balanced, but when it doesn't it's controlled by the Democrats.
Effects of the 1981 Tax Act on the Distribution of Income and Taxes Paid
OVERALL DISTRIBUTIONAL CHANGES
Between 1980 and 1983, the share of individual income taxes paid by taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution increased from 19.1 percent to 20.6 percent. This increase occurred even though the group experienced the largest reduction in average tax rates. Other taxpayers in the top half of the income distribution paid a lower share of taxes over this period, notably those between the 2nd and 25th percentiles of the income distribution, whose share fell from 54.1 percent to 52.7 percent. The share of taxes paid by taxpayers in the next highest quartile fell slightly, while the share of taxes paid by taxpayers in the bottom half of the income distribution increased slightly from 6.9 percent to 7.0 percent.
The principal reason why those in the top percentile paid an increased share of taxes was that their incomes grew faster. Income for this group increased by 42.4 percent between 1980 and 1983, compared to a 24.5 percent growth for income averaged over all returns. A major component of this relatively greater income growth was realized capital gains. For the top percentile, realized capital gains increased by 89 percent between 1980 and 1983 and were responsible for more than the entire difference between the growth in income in the top percentile and the growth averaged over all returns.
The tax system was less progressive in 1983 than in 1980, despite the increased share of taxes paid by the top percentile. Summary measures based on the distribution of after-tax income, arguably the best way to determine progressivity, show that the distribution of after-tax income was less equal in 1983 and that the tax system had a smaller effect in reducing inequality.
It is important to note that an increase in the share of after-tax income received by high-income groups does not necessarily mean that other groups are becoming worse off in absolute terms. Tax reductions that raise the income share and tax payments of upper income groups can also increase the after-tax incomes of lower income groups if (1) increased saving or work effort by those in the top bracket, by adding to the capital stock or the availability of skilled labor, increases real wages for all groups over time or (2) if higher tax payments by upper-income groups allow for larger tax reductions for lower-income groups. The first of these effects would be expected to appear only in the longer term, while the second would occur only as a result of subsequent legislative action.
Such effects cannot be detected in the 1980-1983 data. During this period, the real after-tax income per return in the bottom half of the income distribution declined by almost 3 percent and remained virtually constant for returns in the next highest 25 percent of the income distribution. For the top percentile of returns, the increase in real after-tax income per return was almost 23 percent.
I'm curious did you actually read the CBO report you put up here or just post it because od the results showed between 1980 and 1983? I completely agree with your comment about professional liars so I will finish this for you as it has been my experience that as long as the buzz words are touched on for most liberals that all that is required to get them to form some sort of agreement. You did happen to notice that the bill was signed into law in August 1981 and that all of the tax provisions would be in place after 3 years? If you had a little idea about how the Govt. works then you would know that the tax cuts would not show any results until after 1983 which they clearly did. The period from 1980 to 1983 covers a period that also includes Carter's term as President. While I appreciate your posting the CBO study let me post a paraqgraph from that...
It is important to note that an increase in the share of after-tax income received by high-income groups does not necessarily mean that other groups are becoming worse off in absolute terms. Tax reductions that raise the income share and tax payments of upper income groups can also increase the after-tax incomes of lower income groups if (1) increased saving or work effort by those in the top bracket, by adding to the capital stock or the availability of skilled labor, increases real wages for all groups over time or (2) if higher tax payments by upper-income groups allow for larger tax reductions for lower-income groups. The first of these effects would be expected to appear only in the longer term, while the second would occur only as a result of subsequent legislative action.
You do know what the word longer term means don't you or are you so afraid to admit that a Republican actually created a healthy economy from a disaster created by a democrat? I am willing to give Bill Clinton his due when it comes to the economy. So this revisionist look at Reagan like so many others fails miserably.
I'n curious if you actually read my post or did you just decide to argue for the sake of arguing? If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I included that paragraph you re-quoted as well as the very important following paragraph that you conspicuously left out!!!! I made it big enough so you can't miss it this time, but I'm curious as to why you left it out, especially the first sentence, since it is directly related to the paragraph you repeated????
And while some of the provisions of Reagan's tax cuts didn't go into effect till 1983, that doesn't mean that none of his tax cuts started till 1983. As far as Carter's contribution, when he left office in Jan 1981 unemployment was 7.5% and the last month before the tax cuts passed unemployment dropped to 7.2%, so the economy was improving before Reagan's tax cuts passed. Immediately after Reagan's tax cuts passed, unemployment began to rise to a max of 10.8% for Nov and Dec of 1982 and stayed at double digits for 10 months. It is not credible to blame this on Carter, just as it is dishonest to credit the economic recovery that began in 1983 to the tax cuts alone by ignoring that they were followed by numerous tax increases once the numbers had shown the pragmatic Reagan that the tax cuts did not produce the predicted effects.
Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his tax cut in 1981.
First term
1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982
3. Social Security Amendments of 1983
4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
Second term
6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
7. Tax Reform Act of 1986
8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Do you even have a clue to the fact that this nations, and its citizens prosperity from the mid 80's through the 90's was due to Reaganomics, and the fact that CLINTON elected to extend Reagans economic policies?
Why of course you don't!
Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!
