View Single Post
      10-06-2009, 01:49 PM   #8
scottwww
Brigadier General
United_States
161

 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA


Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpirate87 View Post
I think the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. That would make them LOWER than today. End of discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
From your link:

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth...

The term used is obviously up for interpretation, however given that tax rates under Reagan were HIGHER than those currently in place lead one to believe that we are past that point.

You assume that the burden of taxes is taken up by the rich, which I doubt, otherwise you would see a dramatic shrinkage in that sector in the economy, which is not the case. The biggest shift right now is from middle-class to poor, with the wealthy remaining relatively static. Which means that the tax burden is primarely being passed onto the middle class.
Also from the same link:
The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

President Reagan's plan was good. Even though it shifted the tax burden toward the wealthy, at least the rates were lower, so the wealthy were OK with it. Would you have Mr. Obama and Congress support a similar strategy?

The next step is even better: Abolish income taxes entirely.