Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Papageorgio]

Paying for the finest tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.

Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.

There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.

Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed. Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.

Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.

Why would I do that? I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.

I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.

You don't and I find that insane.

Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Warren Buffett: U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole 'Tax The Rich' Thing

Warren Buffett thinks it's a problem that some of the wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than their housekeepers.

The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.

“That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,” Buffett said in an interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,” he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.


Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.”


The 84-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” -- a nickname the Nebraska native earned for his track record of lucratively accurate investment predictions -- has long advocated for a minimum tax on top earners. In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year. President Obama embraced the idea, calling it "The Buffett Rule."

Specifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income


Warren Buffett U.S. Never Followed Through On That Whole Tax The Rich Thing


GET INFORMED, OR STOP USING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS BUBBA!

I know what he wants. He wants higher earned income taxes with less deductions. He never talks about unearned income, which is most of his income.

Are you a fukkn moron or what? Plain English NEVER seems to get thru that tiny brain of yours on ANYTHING. You are typical right wing hate talk radio listener who believes the propaganda spewed by the morons!



.


Specifically, Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income

I know name calling is generally ineffective. First it shows weakness and secondly it tends to shut down the communication between two people. Of course, some people like to name call because they don't want ideas exchanged or challenged.

And clearly D2Three is here to spew baseless socialist BS and when exposed, to pepper his betters with invective. Nearly 10,000 posts in little more than a year with months off for bad behavior. Having perused a couple hundred of his posts his pattern repeats itself ad nauseam.

The rights inability (like Paps BS premise that Buffett doesn't want his tax rates to increase, as HIS proposals would double his tax burden) to be honest is noted Bubba.

Socialists? Yep, just like the Founders who created a SOCIETY. You Klowns should try to understand what socialism ACTUALLY means Bubs

The right wing echo chamber sure has done a good job of having their reactionaries react with knew jerk to "socialists" lol

You're possibly more ignorant than rdean... and I didn't think that humanly possible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[


There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.

Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed. Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.

Bullshit.

You take away the force and see how many people pay their taxes then.

Welfare queens describes the multigenerational welfare recipients, assholes too sorry or irresponsible to work, illegals aliens on welfare, anybody getting a subsidy or bailout and those countries we give foreign aid to or fight their wars for them. It is a lot of people.

I can try to help the ignorant, but stupid is chronic and congenital.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Paying for the finest tax rates in the world should be a source of capital pride (of ownership) for Persons of wealth.

Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.

There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.

Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed. Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.

Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.

Why would I do that? I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.

I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.

You don't and I find that insane.

Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.

The force of law is quite different than violence. So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.

By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.

 

[dblack]

Yea right, having your money taken by force to be given away to welfare queens should make anybody beam with pride.

There is no force, people pay taxes and people die - two basic truths.

Welfare Queens is a term from the past, when AFDC was replaced by TANF the rules changed. Try to keep up, and if you have, stop lying.

Tell you what stop paying all your taxes and tell us what happens.

Why would I do that? I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.

I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.

You don't and I find that insane.

Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.

The force of law is quite different than violence. So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.

Law enforcement is legitimized coercion, a threat of violence. The question is when is it justified, and when is it not.

 

[Dad2three]

Since Reagan
1. Our industry has want to China
2. Our middle class has become far smaller
3. We have want from one of the best education systems to 14th in the world.
4. Student debt is through the roof!
5. The rich are making record profit...Still they offshore jobs and go through the loop holes.
6. Our infrastructure has gone to shit...
7. Science is being cut and China is catching up to us.

The republican plan sucks ass.

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

YAWN
left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.

11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????

lol

Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

 

[kaz]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! .

So by that logic, should we tax liberals more too?

 

[Dad2three]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

Sure Bubs, sure

COINCIDES WITH DEBT BLOWING UP TOO RIGHT? What happened?

 

[Dad2three]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, since Reagan we've had 8 years of Clinton (D) and 7 years of Obama (D) but don't let facts interfere with your mindless hate, Bubba..

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

YAWN
left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.

11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????

lol

Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, but neither get get the GOP to agree to get rid of ALL of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich! Since the EFFECTIVE rates for the top 1/10th of 1% 1% is about 1/3rd of what it was 1932-1980. You know the underpinning of "supply side" Give the "job creators" tax cuts and it trickles down? lol

YAWN
left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.

11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????

lol

Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!

 

[Dad2three]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?

Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YAWN
left-wingers like this one are comical bunch of crybabies!!!
the Left will tell you Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN TIMES out of one side of their mouth, and in the next moment they are crying out of the other side of their mouths about supply-side economics.

11 tax hikes and reagan still cant get no love from left-wing nutjobs????

lol

Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!

Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?

Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs

YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%

You just can't prove it.
How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, 11 tax hikes on the avg guy, but Ronnie gutted the rich's top rate from 70% to 28% WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Moron

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!

Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.

Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

 

[Dad2three]

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?

Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs

YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%

You just can't prove it.
How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

....But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.



LIBERTARIAN MISES

The Myths of Reaganomics

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%. lol

Wow, that's awful! What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!

Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.

Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
That's awful!
What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.

The Myths of Reaganomics

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

And then Reagan indexed taxes for inflation.

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

OMG! That's awful! So the Social Security tax rate went from what level to what higher level?

Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs

YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40%

You just can't prove it.
How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

....But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.



LIBERTARIAN MISES

The Myths of Reaganomics

How did their income tax rates change?
How did their payroll tax rates change?

Show me some actual numbers, not just your fact free whining.

 

[Dad2three]

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

Thanks for the link.
What was the rate in 1980 and what was the rate when he left office?

Once more:



" WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%"

You know since I never mentioned RATES? But he doubled the self employment tax!

Increasing the number of employed workers is a good thing, you fucking moron.

Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
That's awful!
What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?

Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!

RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)