Reagan lowered taxes and then deficit spent like a drunken sailor at the behest of his corporate overlords. The fight we see now over raising taxes is a direct result of this idiotic fiscal policy. Of course, being as this is America, the burden of picking up the tab on the mountain of lost revenue from not taxing the rich appropriately will fall on the middle class and the poor. America, **** yeah.
If I had known the corporate oligarchy would be not just completed but declared openly in my lifetime, I would have gone to business school. Doh!
Go back and look at those tax rates again. I think you will see that everyone benefited. Did the wealthy benefit more than the poor and middle-class? Probably, but it is hard to really tell since the deductions that were lost and the loopholes that were closed really only impacted the wealthy.
Not every city. When he plays in Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Orlando, or Miami, they leave him alone.
I agree that Reagan spent too much. That is an inherent problem with our system, both parties want to spend money and they spend it freely. If you lower the rates and get rid of deductions like the deficit panel recommends, more of the burden will be shifted to the wealthier. It is not the poor and middle class who will miss being able to deduct interest on a vacation home or on a $1,000,000 home loan. It is not the poor and middle-class who will miss the tax free status of investing in municipal bonds. The goal should be to increase tax revenue and encourage expansion. When you simply increase rates, the main beneficiaries are tax accountants. The wealthy will work even harder to minimize their tax burden.
The increase in the payroll tax negatively impacted the poor and middle classes while the reduction in tax rates, even coupled with Reagan's base broadening efforts (closing loopholes), reduced taxes on the wealthy. In other words, he lowered taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class.
Oh yeah, I forgot... 2 million people in the federal prison system is very civilized. The Iraq war was very civilized. Federal checkpoints and VIPER teams are very civilized... Personal income taxes make up about 1/3 of the federal revenue and are actually the price we pay for a corrupted society - unless you enjoy having every aspect of your life controlled.
But part of the equation is not just cutting the deficit but managing unemployment. You really don't think raising taxes back to 70% on the wealthy is going to effect jobs, the economy and unemployment? Well if that is what you believe even Obama disagrees with you.
This blog on turbotaxes website disagrees with you. Looks like the poor don't pay much taxes at all. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-is-americas-income-tax-burden-weighted/03032010-2488
Oh please. The poor pay lots of taxes... Everybody with a job pays employment taxes, which are making up an increasing percentage of the pie as we drop our income tax levels to something unsustainable. The poor also pay sales tax.
I think even accounting for inflation I don't think that will make much of a difference. I agree there are a lot of problems with small businesses and as a small business owner I honestly don't think the Federal government is much of a help but at the same time I don't think it is a huge hindrance either. Health Care and unemployment insurance are in my experience two of the biggest problems. Income taxes, both personal and corporate, I don't see as much of a problem. One reason why is because when our revenue is low to begin with tax cuts are pretty much meaningless but I wouldn't hold off on making moves that would increase our revenue even if it meant that we pay more in income tax. Obviously not talking about 70% tax rate but a 35% to 38% percent raise wouldn't phase me since I would already expect to pay more as we did better and pay less as we do worse. During the past ten years our revenue has had some big fluctuations and when we were pulling in a lot of revenue and paying more in taxes we never considered trying not to earn more so we could pay less.
I missed this earlier and pardon for this tangent but my mom bought a three bedroom condo in SD for $400K and I according to our agent there are two bedroom condos in the downtown and Gas Lamp area going in the the $200K's. Property prices have been plummeting in CA so there are some great deals now. Heading there tomorrow to see the place.
I think that is a good point and I have come around regarding the flat tax, or at least a flatter tax. This is probably a discussion though for another thread.
No offense but I don't see a middle class anymore. It's the Have and the Have Nots. The redistrubution of wealth has been taken from the middle class and given to the rest of the world for the Elite to rule over. Yeah, it's the conspiracy cliche, but that's how it's playing out.
I haven't bothered to look it up, but is there any way a democratic non-compromise bill can make it through via reconciliation - isn't that how the bush cuts got passed in the first place?
No. All that blog does is explain what a progressive tax system is - wooooo. It says nothing about the relative burden these taxes imply.
The problem with this line of thinking is that those who make this argument never respond when it is pointed out that only 5% or 2% or some really tiny percentage of small businesses actually reach the $250,000 bracket. The simple fact is that nearly all small businesses are not affected, and most that are affected are only affected minimally and only on profits. I live in a place where a condo costs over $500k, too. I almost bought one. My family makes significantly less than $250k a year, and yet we're able to live a very comfortable life and could afford a house in that market if we wanted it. So I feel pretty safe in saying that if you earn over $250k a year, you shouldn't complain if someone calls you wealthy. And of course, only the post-deduction income over $250,000 would get the small increase, so you'd have to be making $350,000 or more to really notice any kind of difference at all and even then I doubt you'd notice. It's one thing to disagree with progressive taxation, but don't act like $250,000 is not a lot of money, or that somebody making that amount will actually be affected if the $250,000 rate goes up.
