Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Kimura]

The federal government is the monopoly issuer of the currency regardless of institutional and legal arrangements between the FED and Treasury. In other words, they can't go broke or run out of their own fiat.

Since I never said that they can go broke or run out of fiat, I'm not sure what your point is here.

US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the global economy.

You said, "US public debt represents the total dollar savings of the US economy", are you admitting your error?

I'm saying, when we think about it, we have to include dollar savings of the foreign sector as well, not just our domestic private sector. I worded it incorrectly.

You did more than word it incorrectly, you excluded non-government debt from savings for some reason.

That's all I did. In terms of national accounts, 'net saving' means one thing, and that's gross saving minus the depreciation of fixed capital. This isn't the same thing as 'net saving' in terms of modern money and sectoral balances.

We're talking sectoral balances. If the government deficit is too small, and it doesn't offset the current account, the private sector will see a net loss (destruction of net financial assets). This is reality and a fact.

Deficits do matter just not in the way you and others seem to believe.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

Jan 8, 2007 - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates ... of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers.



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

Here's how President Obama put it during a recent White House event with a group of middle-class Americans: Unless Congress acts, he said, "starting Jan. 1, every family in America will see their taxes automatically go up."


He went on: "A typical middle-class family of four would see its income taxes go up by $2,200. That's $2,200 out of people's pockets. That means less money for buying groceries, less money for filling prescriptions, less money for buying diapers. It means a tougher choice between paying the rent and paying tuition. And middle-class families just can't afford that now."

To emphasize that these cuts are a big deal, he asked people to "tell members of Congress what a $2,000 tax hike would mean to you." He is now taking his message on the road, telling a group of Michigan auto workers on Monday that the end of the Bush cut would be "a hit you cannot afford to take."

McGurn: Obama's Middle-Class Tax Flip - WSJ

Damn that Bush, cutting taxes on the middle class.

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts


1. Drove the deficit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image1-1.jpg[IMG]



2. Fueled income inequality

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image2-1.jpg





3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

Jan 8, 2007 - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates ... of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers.



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

 

[Rshermr]

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes

Jan 8, 2007 - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates ... of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers.



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Yup. You seem to have missed the percentage of income of the 1% for those two years. Honest mistake, I am sure.
The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

Or consider:

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Now, I am sure that as the rich get a bigger and bigger share of total income, you would like the percent of taxes paid by them to decrease. But then, that will require a change in the tax codes. Good luck with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jan 8, 2007 - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates ... of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers.



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Yup. You seem to have missed the percentage of income of the 1% for those two years. Honest mistake, I am sure.
The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

Or consider:

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Now, I am sure that as the rich get a bigger and bigger share of total income, you would like the percent of taxes paid by them to decrease. But then, that will require a change in the tax codes. Good luck with that.

The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.

Are you saying they made more money and paid more taxes?

That's awful!

 

[Rshermr]

No. Though that is what a simple minded person would take from what the stats say. You know, a con tool type. Someone who always posts drivel from conservative bat shit crazy conservative sources would take that away. Rational people, of course, know that to be the way the tax code works. What is of interest is the PERCENT of the total income going to the upper 1%, which keeps growing. Which con tools like to see. And the working class gets less and less of the income gains. Which con tools also love.

Here, Toddster, again try to understand. Though I am sure you do. Your lack of integrity is showing!!

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

What makes con tools happy is when the very rich get all the increases in income gains of the country, and pay no new taxes. Just a matter of opinion. Tools hate it when the middle class get to share in the economic gains.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Though that is what a simple minded person would take from what the stats say. You know, a con tool type. Someone who always posts drivel from conservative bat shit crazy conservative sources would take that away. Rational people, of course, know that to be the way the tax code works. What is of interest is the PERCENT of the total income going to the upper 1%, which keeps growing. Which con tools like to see. And the working class gets less and less of the income gains. Which con tools also love.

Here, Toddster, again try to understand. Though I am sure you do. Your lack of integrity is showing!!

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

What makes con tools happy is when the very rich get all the increases in income gains of the country, and pay no new taxes. Just a matter of opinion. Tools hate it when the middle class get to share in the economic gains.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Hurray! The mean rich people paid a bigger share.

 

[Rshermr]

No. Though that is what a simple minded person would take from what the stats say. You know, a con tool type. Someone who always posts drivel from conservative bat shit crazy conservative sources would take that away. Rational people, of course, know that to be the way the tax code works. What is of interest is the PERCENT of the total income going to the upper 1%, which keeps growing. Which con tools like to see. And the working class gets less and less of the income gains. Which con tools also love.

Here, Toddster, again try to understand. Though I am sure you do. Your lack of integrity is showing!!

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

What makes con tools happy is when the very rich get all the increases in income gains of the country, and pay no new taxes. Just a matter of opinion. Tools hate it when the middle class get to share in the economic gains.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Hurray! The mean rich people paid a bigger share.

So you say. May be true. But, of course, you provide no proof (no link, me boy). But again, you are happy that the wealthy paid more taxes based on a progressive income tax, but ignore that the rest of the truth is that the wealthy got more of the income, while the middle class got zip. Of course that makes you happy.
Now, come to the current day, me con tool. And stop trying to find unmeaning stats. Makes you look like what you are: Lacking in integrity and driven by conservative agenda.

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.

Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

 

[Dad2three]

The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Yup. You seem to have missed the percentage of income of the 1% for those two years. Honest mistake, I am sure.
The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

Or consider:

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Now, I am sure that as the rich get a bigger and bigger share of total income, you would like the percent of taxes paid by them to decrease. But then, that will require a change in the tax codes. Good luck with that.

The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.

Are you saying they made more money and paid more taxes?

That's awful!

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!

 

[Dad2three]

No. Though that is what a simple minded person would take from what the stats say. You know, a con tool type. Someone who always posts drivel from conservative bat shit crazy conservative sources would take that away. Rational people, of course, know that to be the way the tax code works. What is of interest is the PERCENT of the total income going to the upper 1%, which keeps growing. Which con tools like to see. And the working class gets less and less of the income gains. Which con tools also love.

Here, Toddster, again try to understand. Though I am sure you do. Your lack of integrity is showing!!

The new data show that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.
Top 1 percent take record share of U.S. income | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

What makes con tools happy is when the very rich get all the increases in income gains of the country, and pay no new taxes. Just a matter of opinion. Tools hate it when the middle class get to share in the economic gains.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Hurray! The mean rich people paid a bigger share.

As the share of federal revenues from income taxes fell to post WW 2 lows

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. You seem to have missed the percentage of income of the 1% for those two years. Honest mistake, I am sure.
The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

Or consider:



Now, I am sure that as the rich get a bigger and bigger share of total income, you would like the percent of taxes paid by them to decrease. But then, that will require a change in the tax codes. Good luck with that.

The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.

Are you saying they made more money and paid more taxes?

That's awful!

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!

What's the proper amount?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Though that is what a simple minded person would take from what the stats say. You know, a con tool type. Someone who always posts drivel from conservative bat shit crazy conservative sources would take that away. Rational people, of course, know that to be the way the tax code works. What is of interest is the PERCENT of the total income going to the upper 1%, which keeps growing. Which con tools like to see. And the working class gets less and less of the income gains. Which con tools also love.

Here, Toddster, again try to understand. Though I am sure you do. Your lack of integrity is showing!!


What makes con tools happy is when the very rich get all the increases in income gains of the country, and pay no new taxes. Just a matter of opinion. Tools hate it when the middle class get to share in the economic gains.

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Hurray! The mean rich people paid a bigger share.

As the share of federal revenues from income taxes fell to post WW 2 lows

I'm sure the share will rise now that Obama hiked taxes.

 

[Dad2three]

The percent of total income earned by the top 1% increased from 20.81% to 22.86% in those years.

Are you saying they made more money and paid more taxes?

That's awful!

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!

What's the proper amount?

Weird, we had the largest boom when the top rate on those 'job creators' was 70%-94% and those 'job creators' only received 6%-9% of the pie. How has the middle class done since Reaganomics tax cuts for the rich?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

Hurray! The mean rich people paid a bigger share.

As the share of federal revenues from income taxes fell to post WW 2 lows

I'm sure the share will rise now that Obama hiked taxes.

You mean since its WAY lower top rate than Ronnie's first 6 years?

 

[Rshermr]

As the share of federal revenues from income taxes fell to post WW 2 lows

I'm sure the share will rise now that Obama hiked taxes.

You mean since its WAY lower top rate than Ronnie's first 6 years?

What is really funny is that the con mind is incapable of noting that when the rate of unemployment is high as in the reagan administration, raising gov expenditures to provide stimulus to the economy is the only thing that has ever worked to lower the ue rate. Like reagan who had a high ue rate when he was inagurated, and decided to stop spending and lower taxes. Net result, a ue rate of over 10.8% by November of 1982. So, ronnie raised taxes 11 times AND spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. And the ue rate dropped like a rock. Exactly the correct medicine.
But, con tools like the toddster always ignore that fact. No integrity, you know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As the share of federal revenues from income taxes fell to post WW 2 lows

I'm sure the share will rise now that Obama hiked taxes.

You mean since its WAY lower top rate than Ronnie's first 6 years?

And way higher than when he left office.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sure the share will rise now that Obama hiked taxes.

You mean since its WAY lower top rate than Ronnie's first 6 years?

And way higher than when he left office.

Weird, how did the economy 'boom' as conservatives say happened under Reagan if the top rate was 50% first 6 years? was it only his last 2 years? lol



The Myths of Reaganomics

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.



It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Rshermr]

You mean since its WAY lower top rate than Ronnie's first 6 years?

And way higher than when he left office.

Weird, how did the economy 'boom' as conservatives say happened under Reagan if the top rate was 50% first 6 years? was it only his last 2 years? lol



The Myths of Reaganomics

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.



It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

And, again, reagan did indeed lower tax rates in the beginning. 1981. But within 20 months, the ue rate had shot up to the second highest in the last 200 years. 10.8%. Then ronnie raised taxes 11 times AND spent like crazy. A sure way to get yourself out of the recession he had created. Funny how cons ignore the truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And way higher than when he left office.

Weird, how did the economy 'boom' as conservatives say happened under Reagan if the top rate was 50% first 6 years? was it only his last 2 years? lol



The Myths of Reaganomics

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.



It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

And, again, reagan did indeed lower tax rates in the beginning. 1981. But within 20 months, the ue rate had shot up to the second highest in the last 200 years. 10.8%. Then ronnie raised taxes 11 times AND spent like crazy. A sure way to get yourself out of the recession he had created. Funny how cons ignore the truth.

Unemployment rose because Reagan cut taxes so much?

Damn, you're funny!