doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

I'm beginning to think Ron White was correct when he said "You can't fix stupid." Although in your case it may just be stubborn. Sure tax revenues increased rapidly as the economy recovered. But they increased faster than the recovery and at the end of Reagan's term, taxes as a percent of GDP were higher than at the beginning of his term, and higher than the 40-year moving average. That is a tax increase, no matter how you slice it.

Regarding the "revenue neutral" intention, that appears to have been pure marketing fluff to disguise the tax increase that was required to cover the increasing costs of running Reagan's government programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...c7532_blog.html


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

I'm not sure why you have this fixation. Yes, when economic activity increases, so does taxation. Your point is once again irrelevant. More people are working. More investment is occurring. Yes, Reagan raised taxes. I'm sure I'm typing English, so I'm fairly sure you can understand the last sentence. Once again, what's your point? Your stubborn attachment to this point is the real example of "you can't fix stupid". As is the childish attempt to separate overall economic policy from taxation. It works in the aggregate. Obviously, none of the increased taxes seriously affected the expansion. Did Reagan's policies succeed? Yes of course. Again, what's your point?

My point is that Reagan increased taxes. Not just tax collections, because those went up anyway, as the economy improved. If the economy had remained absolutely stagnant, not a speck of growth, Reagan's changes to the code would have generated more aggregated tax collections. When you do the analysis of the changes in marginal income tax rates, combined with the elimination of deductions and the increases in corporate taxes and capital gains rates (Tax Reform Act of 1986), increased gas taxes (Highway Revenue Act of 1982), increased Social Security and Medicare taxes, increased cigarette taxes (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985), etc., the net result is increased taxes, even in the absence of any economic growth.

Reality is an inconvenient [censored], but facts are facts. I gotta go now, I have to work on some tax returns.

Yes, but his policies successfully "Broadened the Tax Base" and got more people working. This was a result of the rate cuts. He never could have raised taxes, mainly on the wealthy, if the economy hadn't been improving.

Here's an excerpt on "Broadening" as well as explaining the positive effects of the reduction on the cost of capital, very relevant today, as the recession hits the middle/lower middle class hardest.

One criticism that is raised against the Reagan years is that there was a rise in income inequality. The historical record, however, does not support such a conclusion. Data collected by the Federal Reserve reveal that there was, at worst, no significant change in income inequality between 1983 and 1989.[7] Moreover, IRS data indicate that the wealthy paid an increasing share of income taxes during the 1980s.[8]

These observations are consistent with economic theory. In a slowdown or a recession, the wealthy can take care of themselves through their savings and investments. Data show that the wealthy derive a much greater portion of their income from capital investments.[9] Low-income individuals, however, derive most of their income from wages and salaries, which typically decline during recessions. Since they have less savings to draw on, low-income individuals bear the burden of anemic growth far more than the wealthy. Low-income individuals are further hurt by the fact that wage and salary growth is contingent on economic growth.

Critics of the Reagan years assert that cutting taxes on capital is unfair because more of the benefits (in terms of taxes returned to taxpayers) go to individuals with higher incomes. Cutting taxes on saving and investment, however, has implications beyond just the effect on tax returns, particularly with regard to which people are affected. Lower taxes on capital serve to encourage its use. More capital leads to higher wages, increased incomes, and more high-quality jobs. By raising real wages, a reduction in taxes on capital encourages greater workforce participation and spurs investments in human capital, education, and training. Whenever the economy's stock of capital increases, the relative income shares of those already wealthy decline. As a result, the gains from economic growth are spread more evenly across the population.

In fact, data from the 1980s show that a good deal of the alleged rise in inequality is attributable to greater workforce participation. Most studies on income inequality rely on data compiled from tax returns. These studies often point to the fact that the income of some tax returns increased faster than others (even if most households increased in wealth). The problem with these numbers is that they fail to account for increased female labor force participation. Women who were not working previously chose to enter the labor market, since lower taxes on the product of labor increased the net compensation of their work. With two earners, families with these new labor force entrants saw rapid increases in their family income, creating the appearance of inequality. In reality, these number's simply reflect the fact that more people were working.[10]

Median Family Income Falls Under Policies of Higher Taxes

For the typical American family, slower economic growth may seem an abstract economic theory. The effects of slower growth, however, have been undeniably felt by working American families. The increase in taxes during the Bush/Clinton recovery has lead to a noticeably negative effect on family income (Figure 5). In 1991 alone, the median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell by $957.[11] In 1992 and 1993, real median family income dropped by $461 and $709, respectively, resulting in a net fall of $2,127 in inflation-adjusted income during the current recovery.

Replacement, your understanding of supply side theory is pretty nonexistent. This entire conversation is like trying to explain the idea of sacrificing a chess piece to a hoarder.


Ken, he full well understands the point but will not acknowledge it because he is more intent on twisting the intent to suit the disingenuous agenda of the libtard nation. This reminds of Pelosi quoting Jesus during a speech about female abortion rights.

It is not about supply side economics, you big dummy. It is, very simply, about whether Reagan lowered taxes or lowered rates while raising taxes, regardless of what the economy did or did not do. The evidence is pretty clear that his policies and code restructuring had the effect of raising total taxes, regardless of what did or could have happened in the economy. And I'll put my understanding of economics up against yours, any day of the week and in any venue. I look at the facts, not the fanatacism.

Replacement is for some strange reason-perhaps from his Kailf life living with those that lie and twist (and his his case call others-Cowardly,names that show he-and other liberal liars are the ONLY ones that fall for his Reagan raised taxes BS).
As you point out he understands the point but has some enjoyment in twisting facts that show he is wrong.

I have put that clown-cowardly clown Replacement, on Ignore like Ed Good,two of the biggest aholes on here.

You went through a whole bunch of gymnastics to repeat this conclusion. I suppose the economy under a carter second term would have been similar.

Asked again, did the same number of tax payers pay more per tax payer to increase the overall taxes collected. Or, were there more individuals who contributed to the total increase in tax revenue at the time of the huge ideological and policy change from one administration to the next.

Guess what? If someone goes from unemployed to employed, he or she is going to experience a tax increase. Yes, it will add to the total amount of taxation. What a terrible thing...

What is missing here is Historical Context. I touched on it earlier in my posts. The House, and therefore the money, was controlled by the Democrats. The Democrats believed (and still do) in the sociopathic statist religious dogma called Keynesian Economics. They DID NOT expect Reagan's "Supply Side", or Austrian Economics to succeed. Yes, Reagan was forced to raise some taxes, as part of the political price, to pass not only his economic plan, but also the military spending that enabled the West's victory in the Cold War. I'll reiterate once again, the tax increases were not enough to derail the overall economic expansion, but if you're a sociopathic Keynesian, combined with the increased spending, THEY SHOULD HAVE. If you'll notice, the statist religious Democrats have not made the same mistake twice, and have opposed every Austrian measure, both tax and spending reductions, proposed since. Which is why we're in our current situation. We are being unconstitutionally inflicted upon by statist religious sociopaths..