Reagan on taxes:

[Dot Com]

Did I pre-judge him? On social issues? I don't think so. On economic issues? Perhaps, to an extent. Here is the Reagan that Kristol at Fox (neocon founder of the PNAC [group that goaded Bush II into Iraq]) doesn't talk about

Reagan--No Loopholes For Millionaires - YouTube​

What say you given the current President's budget that asks for the people who really, really, really did well financially to pay what they were paying prior to Bush II?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That was a pretty consistant deal with him. It was a major issue all through the 70s from the time that the then secretary of the treasury under Johnson noted that large numbers of people with huge incomes were paying no tax at all.

What does it matter if we have a 70% tax if no one is paying it, and all that money is going to weird stuff?

Once you get down to a rate of 25% the tax shelters cost more than the tax you would pay on the income. That is the major reason collections increased so much during the reagan years. Money flowed out of shelters into more productive areas of the economy. Which also is the reason that they had times when the economy increased by 10% in one quarter.

That is the major conservative argument here. Rich folks can manipulate the tax code when rates are high. When rates are lower, they actually try and earn more money

 

[Jroc]

What’s the problem? Reagan wanted to eliminate tax loop whole which is what Republican also want to do with tax reform everybody should pay the same flat rate the rich pay more because they earn more

 

[Dot Com]

Lettuce not forget that many corps pay no taxes at all because of their lobbyists and *cough* "friends" in Congress. Another reason to get to tax-reform immediately after the election.

 

[Jroc]

Lettuce not forget that many corps pay no taxes at all because of their lobbyists and *cough* "friends" in Congress. Another reason to get to tax-reform immediately after the election.

is there an eco in here?

 

[g5000]

Absolutely. Tax reform is the way to go.

Since Reagan was President there has been more than one loophole a day added to the tax laws.

Oh, and you should see the only regret Reagan actually stated in his Farewell Address:

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one.

Then, 12 or so years later, we find Dick Cheney saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This was followed by 8 years of astronomical spending.

And now, suddenly, the Republican Party is all heated up over deficits again.

Flip.

Flop.

 

[Dot Com]

Absolutely. Tax reform is the way to go.

Since Reagan was President there has been more than one loophole a day added to the tax laws.

Oh, and you should see the only regret Reagan actually stated in his Farewell Address:

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one.

Then, 12 or so years later, we find Dick Cheney saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This was followed by 8 years of astronomical spending.

And now, suddenly, the Republican Party is all heated up over deficits again.

Flip.

Flop.

They really hate deficits (that they in large part caused- 2 unpaid-for wars, unpaid-for trillion $ Rx plan, tax-cuts during war-time) when they're out of power

 

[Jroc]

Absolutely. Tax reform is the way to go.

Since Reagan was President there has been more than one loophole a day added to the tax laws.

Oh, and you should see the only regret Reagan actually stated in his Farewell Address:

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one.

Then, 12 or so years later, we find Dick Cheney saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This was followed by 8 years of astronomical spending.

And now, suddenly, the Republican Party is all heated up over deficits again.

Flip.

Flop.

You idiot Reagan tried to get spending cuts but dems in congress screwed him over and there is no comparison to today’s trillion dollar plus deficits they are unheard of in American history

 

[DontBeStupid]

That was a pretty consistant deal with him. It was a major issue all through the 70s from the time that the then secretary of the treasury under Johnson noted that large numbers of people with huge incomes were paying no tax at all.

What does it matter if we have a 70% tax if no one is paying it, and all that money is going to weird stuff?

Once you get down to a rate of 25% the tax shelters cost more than the tax you would pay on the income. That is the major reason collections increased so much during the reagan years. Money flowed out of shelters into more productive areas of the economy. Which also is the reason that they had times when the economy increased by 10% in one quarter.

That is the major conservative argument here. Rich folks can manipulate the tax code when rates are high. When rates are lower, they actually try and earn more money

Point of fact.

Revenue increased 75.8% under Reagan and actually declined from 1982 to 1983.
Revenue increased 85.6% under Clinton with no annual declines of any kind.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

[Jroc]

Absolutely. Tax reform is the way to go.

Since Reagan was President there has been more than one loophole a day added to the tax laws.

Oh, and you should see the only regret Reagan actually stated in his Farewell Address:

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one.

Then, 12 or so years later, we find Dick Cheney saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This was followed by 8 years of astronomical spending.

And now, suddenly, the Republican Party is all heated up over deficits again.

Flip.

Flop.

They really hate deficits (that they in large part caused- 2 unpaid-for wars, unpaid-for trillion $ Rx plan, tax-cuts during war-time) when they're out of power

Wars end, spendng increases go figure

 

[Jroc]

That was a pretty consistant deal with him. It was a major issue all through the 70s from the time that the then secretary of the treasury under Johnson noted that large numbers of people with huge incomes were paying no tax at all.

What does it matter if we have a 70% tax if no one is paying it, and all that money is going to weird stuff?

Once you get down to a rate of 25% the tax shelters cost more than the tax you would pay on the income. That is the major reason collections increased so much during the reagan years. Money flowed out of shelters into more productive areas of the economy. Which also is the reason that they had times when the economy increased by 10% in one quarter.

That is the major conservative argument here. Rich folks can manipulate the tax code when rates are high. When rates are lower, they actually try and earn more money

Point of fact.

Revenue increased 75.8% under Reagan and actually declined from 1982 to 1983.
Revenue increased 85.6% under Clinton with no annual declines of any kind.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies and a Republican congress who limted his wanted speading spree

 

[Dot Com]

Whats this Jroc neoclown posting on my thread? oh well. Have at it boy.

 

[DontBeStupid]

That was a pretty consistant deal with him. It was a major issue all through the 70s from the time that the then secretary of the treasury under Johnson noted that large numbers of people with huge incomes were paying no tax at all.

What does it matter if we have a 70% tax if no one is paying it, and all that money is going to weird stuff?

Once you get down to a rate of 25% the tax shelters cost more than the tax you would pay on the income. That is the major reason collections increased so much during the reagan years. Money flowed out of shelters into more productive areas of the economy. Which also is the reason that they had times when the economy increased by 10% in one quarter.

That is the major conservative argument here. Rich folks can manipulate the tax code when rates are high. When rates are lower, they actually try and earn more money

Point of fact.

Revenue increased 75.8% under Reagan and actually declined from 1982 to 1983.
Revenue increased 85.6% under Clinton with no annual declines of any kind.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies and a Republican congress who limted his wanted speading spree

Absolutely false.

Try to name them.

 

[Jroc]

Point of fact.

Revenue increased 75.8% under Reagan and actually declined from 1982 to 1983.
Revenue increased 85.6% under Clinton with no annual declines of any kind.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies and a Republican congress who limted his wanted speading spree

Absolutely false.

Try to name them.

Lowerd tax rates, No soviet Union and as I said republican congress lead by Newt

 

[Jroc]

This article appeared on cato.org on August 7, 1997.



The historical irony is that the person most responsible for deficit reduction gets very little attention in the national media. The president who deserves the most credit for the fast-approaching balanced budget we are now witnessing is not Bill Clinton. And the Republican who deserves the most credit is not Newt Gingrich. Rather, the politician whose long-run policies are most responsible for leading us to a potential balanced budget next year is Ronald Reagan. Yes, Reagan, the man vilified by Clinton for "tripling the national debt in the 1980s."

Reagan's legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan's anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America's victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton's lap. The budget deficit is falling, not primarily because Clinton raised taxes and not primarily because the congressional Republicans committed themselves to a balanced budget, but because the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.

The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)--interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich can compete for the Washington spotlight over the good news of dramatic deficit reduction. Their policies have not contributed much to this riveting high-technology age of economic expansion and corresponding fiscal improvement—but, by the same token, their policies haven't impeded it either. Meanwhile, the politician whose policies are most responsible for cultivating this era of growth lives 3,000 miles beyond the Washington Beltway.

Who Balanced the Budget? | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

 

[Dot Com]

Jroc w/ your theocratic/crusaderesque avatar & gag inducing siggie pic

 

[Jroc]

Jroc w/ your theocratic/crusadesque avatar & gag inducing siggie pic:

I think not.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq2sUBNOZCs&feature=related]Ronald Reagan On Taxes... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[starcraftzzz]

Reagan decreased taxes on the rich and increased taxes on the poor/middle class, and all Republican 2012 candidates are proposing deceasing taxes ont he rich and increasing them on the middle class

 

[edthecynic]

That was a pretty consistant deal with him. It was a major issue all through the 70s from the time that the then secretary of the treasury under Johnson noted that large numbers of people with huge incomes were paying no tax at all.

What does it matter if we have a 70% tax if no one is paying it, and all that money is going to weird stuff?

Once you get down to a rate of 25% the tax shelters cost more than the tax you would pay on the income. That is the major reason collections increased so much during the reagan years. Money flowed out of shelters into more productive areas of the economy. Which also is the reason that they had times when the economy increased by 10% in one quarter.

That is the major conservative argument here. Rich folks can manipulate the tax code when rates are high. When rates are lower, they actually try and earn more money

Actually, revenue went down after St Ronnie's tax cuts and went up only after he raised taxes the most of any peace time president in history.