Here are the tax rates on workers, ranged from lower to higher incomes:
taxfoundation.org
The top marginal individual income tax rate in the United States for the 1987 tax year was 38.5%. This rate was a transitional, temporary rate implemented by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which reduced the top rate from 50% in 1986 to 38.5% in 1987, before it dropped further to 28% in 1988Here are the tax rates on workers, ranged from lower to higher incomes:
1977: 14-70%
1980: 14-70%
1987: 15-38.5%%
1991: 15-30%
1993: 15-39.6%
2000: 15-39.6%
2001: 15-39.1%
2009: 15-35%
2016; 15-39.6%
2018: 12-37%
Historical Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2025
How do current federal individual income tax rates and brackets compare historically?
Jesse Jackson made a comfortable living decades ago by threatening big businesses and banks of being accused of racism if they did not bow to his demands. Banks in Chicago were not discriminating on the basis of color but on the basis of credit. Charges of racial discrimination were completely bogus.
Here is what has been reported about the debt increases per year:
Claim: Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people."
www.snopes.com
| MOSTLY FALSE |
So again, NO YOU CAN'T SHOW ME LAWS THAT OBAMA PASSED THAT CREATED DEBT.
GAWD, READ YOUR DAMN LINKS AT LEAST
legalclarity.org
hahaha the ACA was not 100 percent funded, Ukraine wasn't Obama? Are you high?
manhattan.institute
no, that's not socialist, it's a high tax rate, more reform was needed and thankfully he got the tax reform act of 1986 passed. slashing the tax rate, and cutting out loopholes,
Just because a person claims he or she was denied a loan on the basis of race does not make that true, in spite of the fact that many blacks mistakenly assume banks reject loan applications on the basis of race.Claim: Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people."
The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money
The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).
Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.
Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case:
Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People
Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to 'make loans to poor people'?
MOSTLY FALSE
You are right. Obama did not pass laws, but Congress did and presidents signed them which is how the debt increased.
hahaha the ACA was not 100 percent funded, Ukraine wasn't Obama? Are you high?
Regardless I didn't say Ukraine, I mentioned the "shovel ready" trillion dollar bill.
I've given you two laws, additionally, every one of his continual resolutions to fund his Govt.
Obama's Fiscal Legacy: A Comprehensive Overview of Spending, Taxes, and Deficits
The analysis in this paper begins with the 10-year budget baseline that Obama inherited in January 2009 and measures subsequent tax and spending changes.
www.pbs.org
You should not use varying tax rates to push false narratives as though tax rates do not vary due to factors that are incorporated into the variations. Yes, the highest tax rate under Carter was 91%. The fact that other rates applying to other income levels were lower does not mean there was no 91% tax bracket.GAWD, READ YOUR DAMN LINKS AT LEAST
A major reduction began with the Revenue Act of 1964, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which enacted tax cuts initially proposed by President John F. Kennedy. This legislation reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. The 70% top rate persisted through the Nixon and Carter administrations, though the maximum tax on earned income was lowered to 50% in 1972, distinguishing between wages and investment income.
JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE HYPERLINK IT WITH BS, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
YOUR LINK
Tax Rates by President: Federal Income and Corporate History
Explore the decades-long evolution of top federal income and corporate tax rates, highlighting major shifts under U.S. presidents.
So no you will not show the laws that Obama signed that almost doubled US debt. I always forget when the Prez leaves office ALL laws that he signs stop that day, not like UNFUNDED tax cuts or UNFUNDED wars or even UNFUNDED Medicare privatization from Dubya cost anything after 1/20/2009
Yet they did redline her and the community, go figure
Russia invade Ukraine in 2014, literally taking part of the countryYou jumped in with another commenter who mentioned Ukraine, Russia invaded fully in 2022, when we started giving them money. See how it works? Money is how we measure some things!
Obamacares was 100% funded with taxes
"When passed in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to be budget-neutral, with its coverage expansions and subsidies funded through a combination of new taxes, fees, and Medicare savings. The CBO initially projected these revenue sources would fully offset the cost of the law, which was estimated at roughly $938 billion over ten years (FY2010–FY2019)"
Shovel ready $787 billion? Oh right after Dubya/GOP policies put US into the second biggest recession since the GOP's great depression. It worked.
Half of the total fiscal support for the economy, or about $689 billion, from the recovery act and subsequent measures was in the form of tax cuts directed mostly at families. The remainder was spent on such things as rebuilding roads and bridges, preventing teacher layoffs and providing temporary help for people who lost their jobs or needed other assistance because of the poor economy.
The report said recovery act spending will have a positive effect on long-run growth, boost the economy's potential output and ultimately offset much of the law's initial cost.
More than 40,000 miles of roads and more than 2,700 bridges have been upgraded, nearly 700 drinking water systems serving more than 48 million people have been brought into compliance with federal clean water standards and high-speed Internet was introduced to about 20,000 community institutions.
Five years later, what did the stimulus bill accomplish?
The costly $787 billion spending bill that President Barack Obama signed into law soon after taking office boosted the economy and helped avoid another Great Depression, the White House said in a status report on Monday's fifth anniversary of the law's enactment.
