In who do you trust?

[sayemthree]

Reaganomics? cut taxes and government ?
or
Obamaonimics? or tax and spend and spend and tax?

"Reaganomics" was the most serious attempt to change the course of U.S. economic policy of any administration since the New Deal. "Only by reducing the growth of government," said Ronald Reagan, "can we increase the growth of the economy." Reagan's 1981 Program for Economic Recovery had four major policy objectives: (1) reduce the growth of government spending, (2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital, (3) reduce regulation, and (4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply. These major policy changes, in turn, were expected to increase saving and investment, increase economic growth, balance the budget, restore healthy financial markets, and reduce inflation and interest rates.


WASHINGTON - With unemployment expected to rise well into next year even as the economy slowly recovers, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are discussing extending several safety net programs as well as proposing new tax incentives for businesses to renew hiring.

President Obama ’s economic team discussed a wide range of ideas at a meeting on Monday, following his Saturday radio address in which he said it would “explore additional options to promote job creation.” But officials emphasized that a decision was still far off, and that in any event the effort would not add up to a second economic stimulus package , only an extension of the first.

“We’re thinking through all additional potential strategies for accelerating job creation,” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod .

[Negotiator]

Taxes were higher under Reagan. End of discussion?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Taxes were higher under Reagan. End of discussion?

link

The economic benefits of Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Taxes were higher under Reagan. End of discussion?

I think the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. That would make them LOWER than today. End of discussion?

[TMNT]

I haven't seen Obama raise anyones taxes.

[Negotiator]

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.

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

I think the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. That would make them LOWER than today. End of discussion?

Reagan:

0.0% $0 $3,670
11.0% $3,670 $5,940
12.0% $5,940 $8,200
14.0% $8,200 $12,840
16.0% $12,840 $17,270
18.0% $17,270 $21,800
22.0% $21,800 $26,550
25.0% $26,550 $32,270
28.0% $32,270 $37,980
33.0% $37,980 $49,420
38.0% $49,420 $64,750
42.0% $64,750 $92,370
45.0% $92,370 $118,050
49.0% $118,050 $175,250
50.0% $175,250 -

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

I think the top marginal rate under Reagan was 28%. That would make them LOWER than today. End of discussion?

Originally Posted by Negotiator

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.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Reagan:

0.0% $0 $3,670
11.0% $3,670 $5,940
12.0% $5,940 $8,200
14.0% $8,200 $12,840
16.0% $12,840 $17,270
18.0% $17,270 $21,800
22.0% $21,800 $26,550
25.0% $26,550 $32,270
28.0% $32,270 $37,980
33.0% $37,980 $49,420
38.0% $49,420 $64,750
42.0% $64,750 $92,370
45.0% $92,370 $118,050
49.0% $118,050 $175,250
50.0% $175,250 -

President Ronald Reagan and Congress succeeded in reducing tax rates to this:

15.0% 0 29,750
28.0% 29,750 71,900
33.0% 71,900 149,250
28.0% 149,250

Prior to President Reagan, the tax rates were up to 70%.

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by TMNT

I haven't seen Obama raise anyones taxes.

Not correct, in my opinion, though politicians have a way with words to make it seem as if they are doing one thing while doing another.

I believe that Obama has claimed that anyone making less than 250k would not see their taxes go up by one cent. But didn't the federal tax on cigarettes go up $0.62/pack in April, under Obama's watch? Anyone who now buys cigarettes is now paying more in taxes than they were before, regardless of how much they make.

And what if Obama allows the Bush-era tax cuts to expire? Would you still say then that taxes didn't go up under his watch?

And now Congress has tossed out the idea of a VAT.

Can the people still take Obama at his word that taxes won't go up, just because he hasn't actively increased the federal income tax rates?

[TexAg06]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

Not correct, in my opinion, though politicians have a way with words to make it seem as if they are doing one thing while doing another.

I believe that Obama has claimed that anyone making less than 250k would not see their taxes go up by one cent. But didn't the federal tax on cigarettes go up $0.62/pack in April, under Obama's watch? Anyone who now buys cigarettes is now paying more in taxes than they were before, regardless of how much they make.

And what if Obama allows the Bush-era tax cuts to expire? Would you still say then that taxes didn't go up under his watch?

And now Congress has tossed out the idea of a VAT.

Can the people still take Obama at his word that taxes won't go up, just because he hasn't actively increased the federal income tax rates?

it's okay because "sin" taxes never count regardless of political affiliation.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by TMNT

I haven't seen Obama raise anyones taxes.

I havent seen anyone but you vote for BO on this poll.

[lib]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Taxes were higher under Reagan. End of discussion?

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Reagan:

0.0% $0 $3,670
...
50.0% $175,250 -

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. They were higher when he first took office and were lowered significantly through several separate bills over the course of his presidency.

Here's a PDF of the tax brackets for every year from 1913 to 2009 (not adjusted for inflation):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...-200901021.pdf

They started out extremely low in 1913:

(All filers):
Marginal
Tax Rate     Range
1.0%      $      0 $ 20,000
2.0%      $ 20,000 $ 50,000
3.0%      $ 50,000 $ 75,000
4.0%      $ 75,000 $100,000
5.0%      $100,000 $250,000
6.0%      $250,000 $500,000
7.0%      $500,000 -

Remember, 20k was a LOT of money in 1913. The equivalent of ~ $436,300 in 2009.

When Regan took office in 1981 they had risen to:

($100 in 1981 == $237 in 2009)
(Single filers:)
Marginal
Tax Rate     Range
 0.0%     $      0 $  2,300
14.0%     $  2,300 $  3,400
16.0%     $  3,400 $  4,400
18.0%     $  4,400 $  6,500
19.0%     $  6,500 $  8,500
21.0%     $  8,500 $ 10,800
24.0%     $ 10,800 $ 12,900
26.0%     $ 12,900 $ 15,000
30.0%     $ 15,000 $ 18,200
34.0%     $ 18,200 $ 23,500
39.0%     $ 23,500 $ 28,800
44.0%     $ 28,800 $ 34,100
49.0%     $ 34,100 $ 41,500
55.0%     $ 41,500 $ 55,300
63.0%     $ 55,300 $ 81,800
68.0%     $ 81,800 $108,300
70.0%     $108,300 -

In 1988, at the end of Regan's second term, they had fallen to:

($100 in 1988 == $182 in 2009)
(Single filers:)
Marginal
Tax Rate     Range
 0.0%     $      0 $ 17,850
28.0%     $ 17,850 $ 43,150
33.0%     $ 43,150 $ 89,560
28.0%     $ 89,560 -

Here are the 2009 brackets:

(Single filers:)
Marginal
Tax Rate     Range
10.0%     $      0 $  8,350
15.0%     $  8,350 $ 33,950
25.0%     $ 33,950 $ 82,250
28.0%     $ 82,250 $171,550
33.0%     $171,550 $372,950
35.0%     $372,950 -

[Spartikus]

Originally Posted by sayemthree

I havent seen anyone but you vote for BO on this poll.

That is b/c people know not to click on your ridiculous threads. Just look at everything you have posted on this thread and politics section. It's so biased its hard to take you seriously. If I thought for a minute you were more moderate/fair/balanced, I would read more of what you say. It is purely 100% Anti-Obama. I'm not even 100% Obama and you spin everything into a negative. Everyone here knows that. That's your right so, whatever. It wouldnt be hard to have other folks in the Politics section vote for the opposite of your choice. The devil is always in the details too. The poll makes no sense. Obama and Reagan would have to be in exactly the same economic situations. They weren't.

[Ajax-Prime]

Clearly, the combination of huge public debt and having the highest corporate taxes in the world has worked well for Japan. We should follow that model.

[fdsasdasdf]

I trust in myself - peace the fuck out if none of this shit works in the end.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by Spartikus

. Obama and Reagan would have to be in exactly the same economic situations. They weren't.

pretty much they both inherited a horrible economy from the pres before them (Jimmy Carter in the case of Reagan)

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by Ajax-Prime

Clearly, the combination of huge public debt and having the highest corporate taxes in the world has worked well for Japan. We should follow that model.

Just imagine how much more money could be reinvested in the US if we didn't have such an oppressive corporate tax policy. If I had to guess, companies probably spend in the 100s of millions, if not billions, to set up corporate structures that allow them to minimize their tax burden in the US. I believe now that the Obama administration wants to alter the tax code to try to tax money that isn't repatriated to the states -- all that will do is force more companies to move their HQs overseas to countries that don't have such oppressive tax codes.

[Mighty M]

1986 Tax Reform Act. Dont believe for a minute that the previous 70% tax rate was effective.

Come on now boys and girls!

[Ryan335]

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by Ryan335

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

I submit one correction to the above -- item 2 should read:

2) Businesses (who will pass the tax increases on to the consumer, effectively meaning that even those who earn less than $250,000/year will see a tax increase by virtue of higher goods/services pricing)

[Ryan335]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

I submit one correction to the above -- item 2 should read:

2) Businesses (who will pass the tax increases on to the consumer, effectively meaning that even those who earn less than $250,000/year will see a tax increase by virtue of higher goods/services pricing)

Or hire less employees....