Great Yard Sign Explaining President Obama's Change

[ScreamingEagle]

Try 8 times in the 6 years after the 1981 tax cut. The election year of 1988 was the the only other year St Ronnie didn't raise taxes.

Here is a list of Reagan's tax increases after his ONLY 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

Sometimes to be fiscally conservative one must raise taxes...

....but didn't Reagan go along with Democrats on raising some taxes as long as they promised to cut spending by the same amount...? (and then they kept kept on spending....typical)

All this fuss about Reagan raising a few taxes is one big attempt by liberals to obfuscate the FACT that Reagan's massive tax cuts had great results....read it and weep...

When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan’s presidency the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982.

Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com

The result of the 1981 tax cut was the 1982 Reagan Recession, the worst since the Great Depression, with a 6% of GDP deficit, a 10.8% max unemployment rate with 10 months of double digit unemployment, a 20.5% max interest rate and a -6.8% GDP.
The result of the eight 1982 through 1987 tax increases was the reduction of the deficit to 2.8% and reduction of unemployment to 5.3%, and a reduction of interest rates to 11%. Get your chronology straight please.

Sorry...but that claim is nothing more than partisan hack spewage...it wasn't "Reagan's Recession".....there is no way that the tax cuts would have had such an immediate effect....the 1980-1982 recession was already well under way....unemployment stats follow a period of no growth...the ecnonomy began to grow again in 1983....the CAUSE of that recession was that the Paul Volcker Fed kept money too tight because of the inflation problems they'd had during the 70s....in fact....Reagan's tax cuts probably headed off another Depression....

Had there been no compensating increases in the other components of aggregate demand the levels of investment and GDP would have continued downward and there would have been a full blown depression. But there were compensating changes. The most publicized was the Reagan Tax Cut. There were cuts in some fields of Federal government purchases but increases, notably in defense, in others.

The tax cut was justified in terms of Supply-side Economics but equally well could have been justified in terms of demand-side stimulation of the economy. The increase in government purchases along with the tax cut led one economist to characterized the economic policy of the Reagan administration as being "Keynesianism on steroids." Regardless of how the policies were publicized and characterized the end result is that they kept the anti-inflation policy of the Volcker Fed from recreating the conditions of 1929-1930 when the Fed precipitated the Great Depression.

Index Page for applet-magic.com - The Recession 1980-1982

 

[Navy1960]

I see so when you get a mess from a previous Administration, the way to fix it is to make it an even bigger mess in a shorter period of time? Or perhaps while doing so pay every pork program from coast to coast at the expense of people out of work daily? I'm sure the turtle tunnel in Fl. is a shinning example of economic recovery and the almost half a million people who lost their jobs last month will appreciate Obama's efforts on behalf of those turtles.

 

[edthecynic]

Sometimes to be fiscally conservative one must raise taxes...

....but didn't Reagan go along with Democrats on raising some taxes as long as they promised to cut spending by the same amount...? (and then they kept kept on spending....typical)

All this fuss about Reagan raising a few taxes is one big attempt by liberals to obfuscate the FACT that Reagan's massive tax cuts had great results....read it and weep...

The result of the 1981 tax cut was the 1982 Reagan Recession, the worst since the Great Depression, with a 6% of GDP deficit, a 10.8% max unemployment rate with 10 months of double digit unemployment, a 20.5% max interest rate and a -6.8% GDP.
The result of the eight 1982 through 1987 tax increases was the reduction of the deficit to 2.8% and reduction of unemployment to 5.3%, and a reduction of interest rates to 11%. Get your chronology straight please.

Sorry...but that claim is nothing more than partisan hack spewage...it wasn't "Reagan's Recession".....there is no way that the tax cuts would have had such an immediate effect....the 1980-1982 recession was already well under way....unemployment stats follow a period of no growth...the ecnonomy began to grow again in 1983....the CAUSE of that recession was that the Paul Volcker Fed kept money too tight because of the inflation problems they'd had during the 70s....in fact....Reagan's tax cuts probably headed off another Depression....

Had there been no compensating increases in the other components of aggregate demand the levels of investment and GDP would have continued downward and there would have been a full blown depression. But there were compensating changes. The most publicized was the Reagan Tax Cut. There were cuts in some fields of Federal government purchases but increases, notably in defense, in others.

The tax cut was justified in terms of Supply-side Economics but equally well could have been justified in terms of demand-side stimulation of the economy. The increase in government purchases along with the tax cut led one economist to characterized the economic policy of the Reagan administration as being "Keynesianism on steroids." Regardless of how the policies were publicized and characterized the end result is that they kept the anti-inflation policy of the Volcker Fed from recreating the conditions of 1929-1930 when the Fed precipitated the Great Depression.

Index Page for applet-magic.com - The Recession 1980-1982

There was no 1980-1982 recession, just the revisionism of a typical CON$ervative hack.

The 1980 Carter recession was the shortest in history, 6 months ending in July of 1980. By contrast, the 16 month 1981-1982 Reagan recession was the longest since the Great Depression, beginning the second half of 1981 and lasting through 1982.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand your somewhat tortuous effort to support President Obama, basically using the old 'it was worse before.' So five minutes ago.

But the effort proves to be so thin because of the many Bush policies that the current administration is employing.

Now, this may be a bit 'inside baseball' for most, but for you I assume the protestations of the American Bar Association about the Bush Administration's use of Signing Statements, claiming that they were unconstitutional, and, in fact Senator Obama claiming the same, were of some concern.

But aren't you chagrined that now President Obama is using the same techniques here as President Bush did?

One other thing:

And some call me crazy when I say Obama isn't even that much of a Liberal. Everyone thinks the guy is a Socialist when he's not even that much of a Liberal.

What, the Brat is back?

I guess you finished all of your deliveries?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The result of the 1981 tax cut was the 1982 Reagan Recession, the worst since the Great Depression, with a 6% of GDP deficit, a 10.8% max unemployment rate with 10 months of double digit unemployment, a 20.5% max interest rate and a -6.8% GDP.
The result of the eight 1982 through 1987 tax increases was the reduction of the deficit to 2.8% and reduction of unemployment to 5.3%, and a reduction of interest rates to 11%. Get your chronology straight please.

Sorry...but that claim is nothing more than partisan hack spewage...it wasn't "Reagan's Recession".....there is no way that the tax cuts would have had such an immediate effect....the 1980-1982 recession was already well under way....unemployment stats follow a period of no growth...the ecnonomy began to grow again in 1983....the CAUSE of that recession was that the Paul Volcker Fed kept money too tight because of the inflation problems they'd had during the 70s....in fact....Reagan's tax cuts probably headed off another Depression....

Had there been no compensating increases in the other components of aggregate demand the levels of investment and GDP would have continued downward and there would have been a full blown depression. But there were compensating changes. The most publicized was the Reagan Tax Cut. There were cuts in some fields of Federal government purchases but increases, notably in defense, in others.

The tax cut was justified in terms of Supply-side Economics but equally well could have been justified in terms of demand-side stimulation of the economy. The increase in government purchases along with the tax cut led one economist to characterized the economic policy of the Reagan administration as being "Keynesianism on steroids." Regardless of how the policies were publicized and characterized the end result is that they kept the anti-inflation policy of the Volcker Fed from recreating the conditions of 1929-1930 when the Fed precipitated the Great Depression.

Index Page for applet-magic.com - The Recession 1980-1982

There was no 1980-1982 recession, just the revisionism of a typical CON$ervative hack.

The 1980 Carter recession was the shortest in history, 6 months ending in July of 1980. By contrast, the 16 month 1981-1982 Reagan recession was the longest since the Great Depression, beginning the second half of 1981 and lasting through 1982.

oh yeah sure thing.....the prior Carter term had absolutely no effect on the economy..........just a teensy weensy blip that disappeared almost overnight.........but Reagan began his presidency in 1981 and six months later caused the biggest recession in history.........yarn me another one...

....and tell me why is it that your Big O is not claiming this as his recession....six months into his presidency...

 

[Navy1960]

I just thought you democrats would like to know what one of your fellow Democrats had to say on the subject of Carter and Reagan.

The simple fact is that using a 1979-87 time frame is not a fair way to measure the impact of a President who took office only in 1981, and whose economic policies were not in place until 1982. ROBERT S. WALKER Member of Congress, 16th Dist., Pa. Washington, July 21, 1989
Don't Blame Reagan for Carter Economy - The New York Times

What I find interesting that people that were not alive then and have zero clue about what kind of Jimmy Carter was can now tell us all based on bls stats what a great president he was when compared to the Unemployment figures of 1982. I find it somewhat surprising that somehow all the factors leading up to that somehow were cast aside. Can you say "stagflation" if the Carter years. I also find it amusing that the same Democrats who would come to the aide of Obama on any issue be it right or wrong and tell us all how terrible the economy is because Bush left it that way would now try to argue that Reagan was a bad president because his tax cuts somehow cause the 1982 recession.


During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (also known as ERTA or the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) was "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purpose." Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). The Act also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985. Its sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at his California ranch.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

So what part of three years is hard to understand here?


Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA)
tax-cutting legislation. Among the key provisions:

across-the-board tax cut, which took effect in three stages ending in 1983.
indexing of tax brackets to the inflation rate.
lowering of top tax rates on long-term capital gains from 28% to 20%. The top rate on dividends, interest, rents, and royalties income dropped from 70% to 50%.
lowering of marriage penalty tax, as families with two working spouses could deduct 10% from the salary of the lower-paid spouse, up to $3,000.
expansion of Individual Retirement Arrangements to all working people, who can contribute up to $2,000 a year, and $250 annually for nonworking spouses. Also, expansion of the amount self-employed people can contribute to keogh plan account contributions.
creation of the all-savers certificate, which allowed investors to exempt up to $1,000 a year in earned interest. The authority to issue these certificates expired at the end of 1982.
deductions for reinvesting public utility dividends.
reductions in estate and gift taxes, phased in so that the first $600,000 of property can be given free of estate tax starting in 1987. Annual gifts that can be given free of gift tax were raised from $3,000 to $10,000. Unlimited deduction for transfer of property to a spouse at death.
lowering of rates on the exercise of stock options.
change in rules on depreciation and investment credit .
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) Definition | Business Dictionaries from AllBusiness.com

So lets look at the economy after the tax cuts were in place as a RESULT of the bill and not some revisionist look that some may wish to put up.

The bill would be in place after 1983 ...


The employment situation in 1984 reflected extraordinary rates of employment growth in the first 2 quarters, a pause in the summer months, and additional employment growth in the last quarter of the year. Total civilian employment, as measured by the Current Population Survey, stood at 106.0 million in the fourth quarter after seasonal adjustment. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls,as measured by the Current Employment Statistics program, totaled 95.5 milion of yearend. Both series were up by about 7 million from the trought of the 1981-82 recession.


With the robust employment growth early in the year, unemployment continued to drop sharply, but, as the job growth slowed, the unemployment decline slowed after midyear. At 8.2 million in the fourth quarter, unemployment was down about 1.3 million from the year before and more than 3.5 million from the recession trough. At year's end, the rate of unemployment in the total labor force was 7.1 percent; it was 7.2 percent for the civilian labor force. These indicators were down 1.3 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 1983.
Employment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs | Monthly Labor Review | Find Articles at BNET

So again while some partisans who were most likely not alive during the Carter years and were never treated to the wonderful state in which Carter left this nation now like to take statistics and claim otherwise. Frankly this sort of thing is not surprising from some on the left that would think that the debate on "Global Warming" is over and only crackpots disagree with it, that is of course if your not counting over 30,000 scientists and professors.

 

[edthecynic]

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry...but that claim is nothing more than partisan hack spewage...it wasn't "Reagan's Recession".....there is no way that the tax cuts would have had such an immediate effect....the 1980-1982 recession was already well under way....unemployment stats follow a period of no growth...the ecnonomy began to grow again in 1983....the CAUSE of that recession was that the Paul Volcker Fed kept money too tight because of the inflation problems they'd had during the 70s....in fact....Reagan's tax cuts probably headed off another Depression....

There was no 1980-1982 recession, just the revisionism of a typical CON$ervative hack.

The 1980 Carter recession was the shortest in history, 6 months ending in July of 1980. By contrast, the 16 month 1981-1982 Reagan recession was the longest since the Great Depression, beginning the second half of 1981 and lasting through 1982.

oh yeah sure thing.....the prior Carter term had absolutely no effect on the economy..........just a teensy weensy blip that disappeared almost overnight.........but Reagan began his presidency in 1981 and six months later caused the biggest recession in history.........yarn me another one...

....and tell me why is it that your Big O is not claiming this as his recession....six months into his presidency...

ed the moron doesnt understand that POTUS dont raise or lower taxes

 

[007]

When will the American people realize that Obama is our only Hope for Change!!!

--------------

 

[007]

I think I will go out in my garage and make a sign like this and put it up. All my neighbors will start baking pies for me.

I was just thinking EXACTLY the same thing, but I won't put "President" obama at the bottom, I'll put "mister" obama. I think I'll put it right next to the sign that says, "where's your birth certificate obama?"

 

[sitarro]

Obama inherited a huge, huge mess.

All Americans should at least give him a chance

uhmmmmmmmmmmm....as i recall he wanted the job and said he could make it better......

That's true, he spent 730,000,000 dollars of George Soros' money to buy that job, he bought the mess the Democrats gave us since 2006(created to give them a chance at the 2008 elections).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think I will go out in my garage and make a sign like this and put it up. All my neighbors will start baking pies for me.

I was just thinking EXACTLY the same thing, but I won't put "President" obama at the bottom, I'll put "mister" obama. I think I'll put it right next to the sign that says, "where's your birth certificate obama?"

Nah Put President Barack Hussein Obama. I know I know the media, most democrats, and those nutty far left liberals did not provide President Bush with that level of basic respect for the office but try and be better than those jackanapes .

 

[Navy1960]

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

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.

 

[edthecynic]

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

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

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

can you possibly edit your post and make those links in the list? if you do i'll click and read.

 

[Navy1960]

The labor market turned sour in mid-1981 as the economy entered its eighth postwar recession following a rather weak and brief recovery. High interest rates continued to plague the housing and automobile industries, which never totally recovered from 1980, and the weakness of these two critical industries had begun to spread to related industries as 1981 unfolded. Product orders were reduced, leading to increased inventories, sharp cutbacks in production, and eventually to increased layoffs and other job losses.

The labor market, which received its second jolt in as many years, was experiencing precipitous declines by the final quarter of 1981. The number of unemployed reached 9.6 million— 8.8 percent of the work force—by the end of the year. There were also large increases in the number of persons reporting discouragement over job prospects and the number still employed but reporting reduced workweeks.

Although by the end of 1981 total employment was near its year ago level, the pattern during the year was one of growth through spring, stagnation in the summer, and pronounced cutbacks at the end of the year. The percentage of the population employed was at a 4-year low by December.1

The employment situation in 1981: new recession takes its toll, (EXCERPT), Monthly Labor Review Online, March 1982


The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (also known as ERTA or the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) was "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purpose." Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). The Act also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985. Its sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at his California ranch...


Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He promises budget cuts and credit curbs, but more is needed

As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.

For three weeks the White House struggled to develop a plan that would restore the public's confidence that the Government could bring the economy under control.

Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME

The assertions that the Reagan ERTA did not stimulate the economic recovery of the mid 80's and futher tax cuts thereafter did not further stimulate economy of the 80's are completely false. The bills that have been cited above such as the first one.. did things like the folllowing

The scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions were repealed, a 10 percent withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals was instituted, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base and tax rate were increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were temporarily doubled, and excise taxes on telephone service temporarily tripled, in TEFRA.[1]

Some of the others you cited are interesting examples as well, however overall these bills had little or no impact on the original bill or the next one. So your assertion that the tax cuts had nothing to do with the economic recovery of the 80's is a false one.

 

[Navy1960]

The labor market turned sour in mid-1981 as the economy entered its eighth postwar recession following a rather weak and brief recovery. High interest rates continued to plague the housing and automobile industries, which never totally recovered from 1980, and the weakness of these two critical industries had begun to spread to related industries as 1981 unfolded. Product orders were reduced, leading to increased inventories, sharp cutbacks in production, and eventually to increased layoffs and other job losses.

The labor market, which received its second jolt in as many years, was experiencing precipitous declines by the final quarter of 1981. The number of unemployed reached 9.6 million— 8.8 percent of the work force—by the end of the year. There were also large increases in the number of persons reporting discouragement over job prospects and the number still employed but reporting reduced workweeks.

Although by the end of 1981 total employment was near its year ago level, the pattern during the year was one of growth through spring, stagnation in the summer, and pronounced cutbacks at the end of the year. The percentage of the population employed was at a 4-year low by December.1

The employment situation in 1981: new recession takes its toll, (EXCERPT), Monthly Labor Review Online, March 1982


The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (also known as ERTA or the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut) was "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purpose." Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). The Act also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985. Its sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at his California ranch...


Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He promises budget cuts and credit curbs, but more is needed

As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.

For three weeks the White House struggled to develop a plan that would restore the public's confidence that the Government could bring the economy under control.

Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME

The assertions that the Reagan ERTA did not stimulate the economic recovery of the mid 80's and futher tax cuts thereafter did not further stimulate economy of the 80's are completely false. The bills that have been cited above such as the first one.. did things like the folllowing

The scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions were repealed, a 10 percent withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals was instituted, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act wage base and tax rate were increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were temporarily doubled, and excise taxes on telephone service temporarily tripled, in TEFRA.[1]

Some of the others you cited are interesting examples as well, however overall these bills had little or no impact on the original bill or the next one. So your assertion that the tax cuts had nothing to do with the economic recovery of the 80's is a false one.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

good post navy

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obama inherited a huge, huge mess.

All Americans should at least give him a chance

uhmmmmmmmmmmm....as i recall he wanted the job and said he could make it better......

That's true, he spent 730,000,000 dollars of George Soros' money to buy that job, he bought the mess the Democrats gave us since 2006(created to give them a chance at the 2008 elections).

And he is trying to get the congress to sign a bill to spend even more on health care yet he says it wont add one dime to the defecit.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

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.

Seriously, you're a ******* idiot!