Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Myths of Reaganomics

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.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.

The listed brackets before and after show that taxes were cut.

Ah, to much of an ideologue to understand effective tax rates versus marginal rates. I'm shocked

Reagan 'tax cuts':

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

Hilarious that you're agreeing with that goof.
Maybe if you proved his claim, I'd mock you less?

 

[boedicca]

The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's based on SOCIETY. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Benjamin Franklin

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."


...Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

21/91= 23% cut.

Bush cut from 39.6% to 35%. 4.6/39.6=11.6%

Looks like Kennedy's cut was almost twice as large.

 

[Dad2three]

Every president has to pay the obligations incurred by previous presidents. Since you imbeciles don't let Bush off the hook for such obligations, you have no justification for letting Obama off the hook. Furthermore, part of what Obama ran on was reducing the deficit.

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues, 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eye could see...


HONESTY, TRY IT!!!


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues

Obama has record US revenues now.
Where is his balanced, or surplus, budget?

It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."


...Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

21/91= 23% cut.

Bush cut from 39.6% to 35%. 4.6/39.6=11.6%

Looks like Kennedy's cut was almost twice as large.

Much larger to start with, how about EFFECTIVE tax rates? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.

BZZ, No, it's percentage of ones income they are talking about... Try the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST link I gave

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...

dear, what is your point?
except that you always want more and more lib commie violence. Today the Nazi steal your estate at gun point? What's tomorrow? Where does your violence end?

Poor, ignorant deluded senior citizen living off of Gov't teet standing up for millionaires and billionaire best interests. Shocking...

you mean standing up against libcommie violence. Where does your use of govt violence end? Obviously liberals want govt violence in all areas not just estate taxes! Liberalism is all about govt violence.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.

BZZ, No, it's percentage of ones income they are talking about...

no its not!! all should pay the same price for govt just like all pay the same price in the supermarket.

 

[Dad2three]

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.

The listed brackets before and after show that taxes were cut.

Ah, to much of an ideologue to understand effective tax rates versus marginal rates. I'm shocked

Reagan 'tax cuts':

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

Hilarious that you're agreeing with that goof.
Maybe if you proved his claim, I'd mock you less?

So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong? lol


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. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.


https://mises.org/daily/1544

 

[Dad2three]

The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.

BZZ, No, it's percentage of ones income they are talking about...

no its not!! all should pay the same price for govt just like all pay the same price in the supermarket.

OPINION. Not based in FACTS

 

[Dad2three]

You and all your lemmings thanking you would have to write Obama about that one... Why didn't he and the Dem Senate and Congress do something about it when they had a super majority for 2 years, or even under Bush when they held the house and Senate for 2 years (Obama included).

Oh, because you only care when a Republican is President.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


AS DUBYA'S ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ AND LOSING 700,000+ JOBS A MONTH

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period.

How long was Bush's filibuster-proof majority?

What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.

NOPE. Try again

https://mises.org/daily/1544



And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.

NOPE. Try again

https://mises.org/daily/1544



And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!

unemployment went up because of Fed's 20% prime rate. Obviously taxing money from the private sector causes unemployment while cutting taxes causes employment. Tax venture capital and there is less venture capital for new ventures

Its almost simple enough for a liberal to understand

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues, 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eye could see...


HONESTY, TRY IT!!!


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues

Obama has record US revenues now.
Where is his balanced, or surplus, budget?

It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.

We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.

Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?

Or am I a racist for asking?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, to much of an ideologue to understand effective tax rates versus marginal rates. I'm shocked

Reagan 'tax cuts':

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

Hilarious that you're agreeing with that goof.
Maybe if you proved his claim, I'd mock you less?

So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong? lol


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. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.


https://mises.org/daily/1544

So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong?

Yeah, he's a nutbag, like Krugman.

of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts

Majority? That sounds like more than the top 1%. Thanks!!!

would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains.

Lowered savings and investment are bad. I agree, we need to cut business taxes and capital gains taxes, right now!!!! Thanks again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


AS DUBYA'S ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ AND LOSING 700,000+ JOBS A MONTH

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period.

How long was Bush's filibuster-proof majority?

What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

 

[Political Junky]

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period.

How long was Bush's filibuster-proof majority?

What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.

NOPE. Try again

https://mises.org/daily/1544



And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!

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. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because of bracket creep? That's hilarious.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would bracket creep have been prevented? No.

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because Social Security is a crappy system and payroll taxes had to increase? Even funnier.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would Social Security have been less crappy? No.
Would payroll tax hikes have somehow been avoided? No.

Keep referencing that nutbag, he's very helpful to your claims. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

 

[Immanuel]

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything. As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow? That is so funny! What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns? A year, year and a half at the most.

Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments

History makes the message clear
Investors who sit on the sidelines after a downturn missed the higher-than-average returns that followed market corrections. While it may be tempting to stay in cash until you're sure the markets have calmed, history shows us that you may have a better chance of recouping your losses—and doing so at a faster rate—if you re-enter the markets sooner rather than later.

Looking at historical index returns, we can study how the market behaved coming out of prior market downturns. Between 1926 and 2008 there were seven periods of recession where markets were down more than 25% and the down period lasted longer than 12 months. On average the annualized market returns were notably higher in the 10 years after each market rebound compared to long-term results from 1926-2008.

Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.

I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.