GOP Tax Policy Shifts Burden to Working and Middle Class Americans

Dogger

Active Member
Apr 16, 2008
979
61
28
Dixie
We've all heard the Republican myth about Ronald Reagan's tax cuts. I call it a myth, because it omits the fact that Reagan signed many tax hikes after his initial cut. Indeed, the many increases that followed his initial cut operated to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and working poor.

Reagan's initial tax cuts were top-loaded, to give the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest. His biggest cut, reducing the top bracket by 29%, affected only the wealthiest Americans. Everyone else got much smaller reductions. When the deficit began to get out of control, however, Reagan signed several hikes.

The subsequent hikes were more evenly distributed across brackets, except for the Payroll Tax increases which hit lower brackets harder and did not touch the top brackets at all. The massive cuts in the top brackets remained in place, and were reduced even further post-Reagan.

Here is the truth, from a conservative publication no less: Reagan raised taxes every year except his first and his last.

"In 1982 alone, [Reagan] signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion."

"According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year." [emphasis added]

Other increases:
  • 1983: Reagan raised the Social Security tax rate, a tax increase that lives with us still, so that those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
  • 1984: Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.
  • 1985: Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
  • 1986: Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.
  • 1987: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more!
  • 1988: Alzheimer's sets in; Reagan forgets to raise taxes!
The article establishes:

“The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.”

The Conservative National Review: The Real Reagan Record!
 
I have no problem with the rich paying more since they have benefited the most from the economic environment over the past 3-4 decades, but it doesn't look like the tax burden has shifted to the middle and lower classes, at least at first glance.

taxratesbyquintile.gif


http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/03/tax-rates-by-income-quintile.html
 
I have no problem with the rich paying more since they have benefited the most from the economic environment over the past 3-4 decades, but it doesn't look like the tax burden has shifted to the middle and lower classes, at least at first glance.

taxratesbyquintile.gif


http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/03/tax-rates-by-income-quintile.html

It is being hidden....our taxes haven't gone up yet, but the middle and lower classes are funding federal spending with very little help from the upper class by Congress using our social security surplus funds for what Irs revenues should be paying.

When we who have had to pay take major cuts in the future to ss because the feds can't afford to pay us back is where the middle and the lower class will end up paying even more in taxes or get less back then they were promised after paying in to...rather over paying in to social security nearly 45 years by the time they collect.

care
 
That chart has been explained here: Don't believe what you see

Paradoxically, as the middle 20% see their tax rate decrease, they also earn a smaller share of the nation's after-tax income (black line at right). At the same time, the top 1% saw their share of after-tax income double from about 8% to almost 16% (blue line). The top 20% line is also upward-sloping although less pronounced. So, the implication that the middle class have had it good is plainly wrong.

What is going on? Two factors were at play and the Congressman presented only one side of the story (the tax rate). What he omitted was that during this period, the nation's wealthy took home larger and larger shares of the pre-tax income. This shift in pre-tax income more than offset any relative reduction in tax rate for the middle 20%.

This distortion can be traced back to the use of quintiles (or more generally, ranks). We use them to cope with data having extreme distributions but a by-product is losing information about how extreme are the extreme values. As demonstrated here, the quintiles from old are really different from the quintiles from today because the underlying distribution has become much more extreme.
 
We've all heard the Republican myth about Ronald Reagan's tax cuts. I call it a myth, because it omits the fact that Reagan signed many tax hikes after his initial cut. Indeed, the many increases that followed his initial cut operated to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and working poor.

Reagan's initial tax cuts were top-loaded, to give the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest. His biggest cut, reducing the top bracket by 29%, affected only the wealthiest Americans. Everyone else got much smaller reductions. When the deficit began to get out of control, however, Reagan signed several hikes.

The subsequent hikes were more evenly distributed across brackets, except for the Payroll Tax increases which hit lower brackets harder and did not touch the top brackets at all. The massive cuts in the top brackets remained in place, and were reduced even further post-Reagan.

Here is the truth, from a conservative publication no less: Reagan raised taxes every year except his first and his last.

"In 1982 alone, [Reagan] signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion."

"According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year." [emphasis added]

Other increases:
  • 1983: Reagan raised the Social Security tax rate, a tax increase that lives with us still, so that those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
  • 1984: Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.
  • 1985: Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
  • 1986: Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.
  • 1987: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more!
  • 1988: Alzheimer's sets in; Reagan forgets to raise taxes!
The article establishes:

“The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.”

The Conservative National Review: The Real Reagan Record!

Interesting. Clinton had 8 years to change that. All these little factoids are interesting but the fact is, when Reagan was President, I had more money in my pocket and it bought more than at any time since.

One of these days you partisan types are going to see (maybe) that when it comes to money, those professional bureaucrats in DC are thick as thieves, no one more guilty than the other. They want to keep their seats and the wealthy can spread some coin around and make that happen ... providing they vote right on the right issues.
 
Interesting. Clinton had 8 years to change that. All these little factoids are interesting but the fact is, when Reagan was President, I had more money in my pocket and it bought more than at any time since.
That is so nice for you. If you were the only person in the country, that would be a legitimate basis for setting national policy.

Whatever benefit you enjoyed under Reagan was not sustainable. You could have achieved the same thing by running up your credit card and not paying the bill.
 
What charts?

Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes.....:rofl:

Trouble is, we are learned long ago....liars can figure...but figures don't lie....

Rupubs cut taxes, Dims raise 'em.....and that the FACT of the matter...
 
What charts?

Rupubs cut taxes, Dims raise 'em.....and that [sic] the FACT of the matter...

The deficit is a tax levied on future generations, for things we consume today. Borrowing is sustainable for capital improvements (similar to taking a mortgage on your house to pay for it), but disastrous for ongoing expenses (like tapping home equity to buy gas and groceries).

Add the deficit to the analysis, and it's clear: Republicans raise taxes on your kids and leave them nothing to show for it, while Democrats pay the bills. Which would you rather have as your parent?
 
Interesting. Clinton had 8 years to change that. All these little factoids are interesting but the fact is, when Reagan was President, I had more money in my pocket and it bought more than at any time since.

One of these days you partisan types are going to see (maybe) that when it comes to money, those professional bureaucrats in DC are thick as thieves, no one more guilty than the other. They want to keep their seats and the wealthy can spread some coin around and make that happen ... providing they vote right on the right issues.

hmmmmmm, that sure is a different story for my husband and me....at that time.

when reagan was president we bought our first house and the best interest rate on the mortgage we could get was 13.5%, which mortgaged strapped us...things were not pretty for the working, up and coming, middle class....at least not where i was living....? my taxes went up, with the increased social security tax put on both my husband and me....

i guess we were at different stages in our lives? mine was not great under reagan, that i do remember!

care
 
The deficit is a tax levied on future generations, for things we consume today. Borrowing is sustainable for capital improvements (similar to taking a mortgage on your house to pay for it), but disastrous for ongoing expenses (like tapping home equity to buy gas and groceries).

Add the deficit to the analysis, and it's clear: Republicans raise taxes on your kids and leave them nothing to show for it, while Democrats pay the bills. Which would you rather have as your parent?

You don't suppose that the deficit is caused by the highest expenditure in the federal government, entitlement spending and welfare spending?
 
You don't suppose that the deficit is caused by the highest expenditure in the federal government, entitlement spending and welfare spending?


You mean the Medicare Prescription Drug Legislation where 99.9% of the Democratic congressmen voted no in the House of Representatives?

Where the Republican Congressmen in charge of the committee on the pill bill locked all Democratice Congressmen out of the Pill Bill legislation and Pill Bil conference while they HAD PHARMA REPRESENTATION in these meetings actually WRITING the legislation for it?

Where the Repub congressman in charge of it left the Congress right after the Bill was passed and went to work for one of these Pharma corps with a multi million dollar job contract?

You mean the Medicare Pill Bill, where the republicans forced the actuary that calculated the true expense of the bill to be 200 BILLION more costly than what most in congress were told to keep his MOUTH SHUT or they would fire him?

You mean the Medicare Pill bill that ACTUALLY DID NOT PASS THE HOUSE, but the republican leadership kept the 15 minute vote opened for 3 HOURS till 3 AM in the morning, while they twisted key republicans voting against its arms, and offer MONEY in exchange for them changing their vote to YES?

You mean the Medicare Pill bill where the Republicans in congress REFUSED the democratic proposal of allowing us to negotiate a Bulk discount for the drugs...and REFUSED to allow the states buying from Canada to continue to buy from Canada making these state's medicare costs go up and the cost of this program to alll TAX PAYERS GO UP?

Sorry to be so direct on this, but this Medicare Pill Bill entitlement that was added with no ability to negotiate for better prices thanks to the Republicans.....is going to bankrupt us the way it was passed.

Care
 
You mean the Medicare Prescription Drug Legislation where 99.9% of the Democratic congressmen voted no in the House of Representatives?

Where the Republican Congressmen in charge of the committee on the pill bill locked all Democratice Congressmen out of the Pill Bill legislation and Pill Bil conference while they HAD PHARMA REPRESENTATION in these meetings actually WRITING the legislation for it?

Where the Repub congressman in charge of it left the Congress right after the Bill was passed and went to work for one of these Pharma corps with a multi million dollar job contract?

You mean the Medicare Pill Bill, where the republicans forced the actuary that calculated the true expense of the bill to be 200 BILLION more costly than what most in congress were told to keep his MOUTH SHUT or they would fire him?

You mean the Medicare Pill bill that ACTUALLY DID NOT PASS THE HOUSE, but the republican leadership kept the 15 minute vote opened for 3 HOURS till 3 AM in the morning, while they twisted key republicans voting against its arms, and offer MONEY in exchange for them changing their vote to YES?

You mean the Medicare Pill bill where the Republicans in congress REFUSED the democratic proposal of allowing us to negotiate a Bulk discount for the drugs...and REFUSED to allow the states buying from Canada to continue to buy from Canada making these state's medicare costs go up and the cost of this program to alll TAX PAYERS GO UP?

Sorry to be so direct on this, but this Medicare Pill Bill entitlement that was added with no ability to negotiate for better prices thanks to the Republicans.....is going to bankrupt us the way it was passed.

Care


Lmao...that 0.01% of a democratic congressman must be pretty unpopular.
Could you provide a link please?
 
Nobody, they would work for their food.
You complained about "entitlement spending" in your earlier post.

Are you so oblivious that you don't know this includes the elderly and disabled on Social Security?

Who among them would you let starve to death if they couldn't work for food?
 
You complained about "entitlement spending" in your earlier post.

Are you so oblivious that you don't know this includes the elderly and disabled on Social Security?

Who among them would you let starve to death if they couldn't work for food?

People should be allowed to take their own money and fund their own long term disability and retirement. Their disability and retirement shouldn't be dictated by an inefficient government.
 
People should be allowed to take their own money and fund their own long term disability and retirement. Their disability and retirement shouldn't be dictated by an inefficient government.

tooo late! the boomers have paid in for 45 years, when they go to retire, and there are people that have paid in to it for 10 years and 20 years and 30 years that expect SS Insurance and Medicare Insurance to be there...

There IS NO TURNING BACK for these people, so,

try again! With something that would solve that part of the issue too! ;)

care
 
Lmao...that 0.01% of a democratic congressman must be pretty unpopular.
Could you provide a link please?
Just caught this message, so give me a minute or two or three :), I can get a couple of links for you...

I was up until 3am in the morning watching this on c-span....it sickened me and for the first time in my life, I realized that we really didn;t have the representation we think we do with our Congress and Congressmen..... :(

Care
 
People should be allowed to take their own money and fund their own long term disability and retirement. Their disability and retirement shouldn't be dictated by an inefficient government.

Like those people who invested in Enron, and now spend their retirement as Wal*Mart greeters?

The myth of inefficiency in Social Security comes from a skewed examination of only the retirement side of the program. Throw in the value of the disability insurance portion of SS, and it's money well-spent.

Before Social Security, most elderly and disabled lived and died in poverty and dependence. Social Security reversed that. Conservatives said it would ruin the country, but it didn't. Conservatives were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
 
tooo late! the boomers have paid in for 45 years, when they go to retire, and there are people that have paid in to it for 10 years and 20 years and 30 years that expect SS Insurance and Medicare Insurance to be there...

There IS NO TURNING BACK for these people, so,

try again! With something that would solve that part of the issue too! ;)

care

Well, you take their money and allow them to invest it in bonds. For the rest of us, allow us to invest it however we want, that's the solution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top