Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Did Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy? (If you answered "yes," are you sure?)
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I occasionally had a little fun with friends by asking if they remember when Jimmy Carter undertook aggressive action against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. (Huh?? What??)
Likewise, I've enjoyed asking a couple of left-leaning members of my very large, extended family whether they are aware that Reagan actually raised taxes on the wealthy.
Yes, I know. "Everyone" seems to think that tax cuts on the wealthy were a prominent feature of Reagan's agenda, in pursuit of a "trickle-down economics" agenda.
But what if I were to tell you that, contrary to popular belief, that's not remotely what happened/
This article was something of an eye-opener for some who looked only at the change in the statutory top-bracket marginal tax rate without understanding how the pre-1986 tax code actually worked.
Many Hollywood celebrities often pretend to be all-in on the idea of "paying for all this shit." But what happens when push comes to shove?
Well here's one notable example. Ten years ago, when Will Smith was in Paris promoting one of his films, he sat for a short interview with one of the French networks. At the time, Monsieur Hollande had shoved through the idea of a 75% marginal tax rate on high-income earners.
When Smith was told by an interviewer that the rate was going to be 75%, he looked incredulous. "Seventy-five! Did you say seventy-five? Well, that's different. God bless America!"
Check out the look on Will's face. He appeared as though someone had just walked right onto the set and slapped him upside the head!
That is not a very flattering article for Reagan imho. It is fair though.
The 86 SS tax reform has seemed to hide the continued increased Defense spending.
Reagan would be kicked to the curb much like many of the so called Rhinos have been in the last 6 years.
Did this change your mind? Reagan first pushed through a 23% across-the-board tax cut. Indexed the standard deduction and personal exemptions for inflation to reduce bracket creep.
Then later with Tip O'Neill he slashed the top income tax rate down to 28%, from 70% before he took office! And he eliminated loopholes, made it tougher to evade taxes, and eliminated economically inefficient tax shelters.
And what was the result? Tax revenue as a % of GDP under Reagan increased to 18.2%, from 18.1% under Carter!
Does this change your beliefs that (a) Reagan gave a big handout to the rich by lowering their tax rates, and (b) lower tax rates mean lower government revenues?
Yes military expenditures went up, and therefore so did federal spending as a % of GDP. But partly as a result of that Reagan ended the cold war. And that paved the way for Clinton and Republicans in Congress to balance the budget in Clinton's second term.
This will be my last post for a while. I will be taking a break. I am temporarily banning myself from eccie, in solidarity with one of the two intellectual giants on this board, Captain Midnight. He was banned today. The forum will be a poorer place for it.
In Hong Kong last night there were no candles in Victoria Park, to commemorate the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Well, this is the United States of America, not Hong Kong. And we're still free here. So I'm lighting my own little candle, in memory of Captain Midnight.
I am temporarily banning myself from eccie, in solidarity with one of the two intellectual giants on this board, Captain Midnight.
I gather I'm the other intellectual giant referenced. While I appreciate the designation, my preference is to humbly stay UTR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
oooh.. midnite got banned! what did he do?
I don't know what he did, but what he doesn't do is defend his statements. CM acts like you're almost crazy if you don't completely agree with him. Then links others' posts or news links in response. Hardly an intellectual giant.
Did this change your mind? Reagan first pushed through a 23% across-the-board tax cut. Indexed the standard deduction and personal exemptions for inflation to reduce bracket creep.
Then later with Tip O'Neill he slashed the top income tax rate down to 28%, from 70% before he took office! And he eliminated loopholes, made it tougher to evade taxes, and eliminated economically inefficient tax shelters.
And what was the result? Tax revenue as a % of GDP under Reagan increased to 18.2%, from 18.1% under Carter!
Does this change your beliefs that (a) Reagan gave a big handout to the rich by lowering their tax rates, and (b) lower tax rates mean lower government revenues?
Yes military expenditures went up, and therefore so did federal spending as a % of GDP. But partly as a result of that Reagan ended the cold war. And that paved the way for Clinton and Republicans in Congress to balance the budget in Clinton's second term.
This will be my last post for a while. I will be taking a break. I am temporarily banning myself from eccie, in solidarity with one of the two intellectual giants on this board, Captain Midnight. He was banned today. The forum will be a poorer place for it.
l]
Well I won't waste my time countering that horseshit until your candle burns out and your heavy heart lightens up!
Wtf did the Captain do to get hisself banned?....other than engaging with bambam. Anyone who engages with that silly fucker should self ban!
Captain Midnight. He was banned today. The forum will be a poorer place for it.
Maybe the Mods agreed with you, because the ban lasted less than 4 hours. Or maybe CM himself listed ''banned'' as a prank?
So how long will the ''solidarity'' ban last? When will Tiny discover his Hero isn't banned?
How will we pay for this shit? Incrementally, through taxes. But the debt will never be paid beyond marginally. Paying it off destroys the economy. What happened to the far right that used to scream for a balanced budget amendment? They were schooled and now understand the folly. 90% do, at least. There's always a few holdouts with limited intellectual capacity.
I gather I'm the other intellectual giant referenced. While I appreciate the designation, my preference is to humbly stay UTR.
I don't know what he did, but what he doesn't do is defend his statements. CM acts like you're almost crazy if you don't completely agree with him. Then links others' posts or news links in response. Hardly an intellectual giant.
no, that's what you do. and when you really get butt hurt you claim everyone is "attacking you" just because they don't agree with you.
CM most certainly defends his positions. you know that. show me a post where he didn't reply with follow ups to his statements. we'll wait ..
no, that's what you do. and when you really get butt hurt you claim everyone is "attacking you" just because they don't agree with you.
CM most certainly defends his positions. you know that. show me a post where he didn't reply with follow ups to his statements. we'll wait ..
Nonsense. You are butt hurt that I called you out for being soft on crime. You had never viewed yourself that way. But it stung when I pointed out that your method is to punish crime After you allow it to occur, whereas I intend to block crimes before they occur, and punish hard when they happen. Hence your radical defense of the Fort Worth Church murderer, your defense of his ''Liberty'' and ''right'' to invade a private Church service.
I didn't say CM didn't respond with follow ups. Reading is fundamental.
Nonsense. You are butt hurt that I called you out for being soft on crime. You had never viewed yourself that way. But it stung when I pointed out that your method is to punish crime After you allow it to occur, whereas I intend to block crimes before they occur, and punish hard when they happen. Hence your radical defense of the Fort Worth Church murderer, your defense of his ''Liberty'' and ''right'' to invade a private Church service.
I didn't say CM didn't respond with follow ups. Reading is fundamental.
you said he didn't defend his positions. he does.
remember this?
"but what he doesn't do is defend his statements."
reading IS fundamental and so is reading comprehension.
now about that soft on crime nonsense.
you are the one that's soft on crime. soft by placing such ridiculous conditions on capitol punishment as to make it impossible to carry out. witnesses? admission of guilt? NONSENSE!
at least you aren't so whacked out in left field like WTF is by claiming he'd execute the jury if facts came out later that would change the verdict. butt that doesn't gain you much does it?
the video i posted proves you completely wrong about the Ft. Worth church shooting. it's there for all to see. i'll refrain from embarrassing you by posting it again.
the pastor at the church stated that the shooter was known to him. so explain why he should have been barred from entry while the church was OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR SERVICES?
explain why the church should frisk people upon entry? wand then for metal objects? your claim the security there "should have known" he was hiding a weapon is ridiculous. wearing a coat inside? didn't know that was a "tell-tail" sign.
all of your arguments fall flaccid .. hopefully that doesn't apply in another context ..
This will be my last post for a while. I will be taking a break. I am temporarily banning myself from eccie, in solidarity with one of the two intellectual giants on this board, Captain Midnight. He was banned today. The forum will be a poorer place for it.
]
the video i posted proves you completely wrong about the Ft. Worth church shooting. it's there for all to see. i'll refrain from embarrassing you by posting it again.
the pastor at the church stated that the shooter was known to him. so explain why he should have been barred from entry while the church was OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR SERVICES?
explain why the church should frisk people upon entry? wand then for metal objects?
You are an argumentative one, aint you? And very slow to comprehend. I answered these questions several times. You are so busy arguing you don't read.
Last time. Stop being so SLOW.
The Pastor knew him as a Beggar on two occasions. I didn't say bar him, I said tell him to remove his coat that had an observable bulky suspicious item concealed. The Guard admitted being very suspicious, that's why he made a point of standing near and watching the soon-to-be Double Murderer at all times. The Guard waited until two Church members were murdered before acting. Which is what waco would do, because he values liberty and the ''right'' to waltz into a Church service armed, and be left alone to go on a killing spree.
That makes you SOFT on crime. You valued a Murderer's sense of freedom more than two lives that were needlessly taken. I bet you were for stop-and-frisk in New York? Same concept here, but you would rather argue with me. You would rather Murderer's kill people than ''violate'' their ''liberty'' by asking them to remove their coat (Fort Worth), or what they are doing out in a particular neighborhood late at night (New York).
I think you should change your nickname to the soft-on-crime Kid.
Did Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy? (If you answered "yes," are you sure?)
