╌>

MEME BUSTERS

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  freewill  •  6 years ago  •  46 comments

MEME BUSTERS

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Ran across this meme at Minds.com a couple months ago and felt compelled to set the record straight.  Didn't get much of a response for some reason. Huh, imagine that?  My bad for supposing that facts or reality might make any difference.

A few minor factoids:

1. Reagan did NOT impose income tax on social security. That was born of an Advisory Counsel assembled in 1979, later named the Greenspan Commission after reviewing the dire condition of the Social Security Trust Fund.

2. The bill was passed by Congress in 1983 by a highly bi-partisan vote especially in the Senate, and signed by Reagan with some trepidation.

3. The provisions of the 1983 Amendments, starting in 1984, were to make taxable 50% of the SS benefits but only for those making over a given threshold so that merely 18% of the wealthier taxpayers were actually effected.

4. The SS provisions were amended again in 1993 as part of the OBRA to create a second tier of higher income earners who would have their benefits taxed at 83%. "Prior to this change, 81.8% of Social Security beneficiaries had no potential tax liability for their Social Security benefits. This was not changed, in any way, by the 1993 law. However, of the 18.2% already subject to potential taxation, 10.6% saw their potential tax liability increase, while the remaining 7.6% suffered no change."

5. The revenues from these taxes were put back in the SS trust fund to help extend its solvency.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Just in case, facts or accuracy actually matter to the author of this meme..... (-:

Oh and while he cut the statutory tax rates, reduced the number of brackets and simplified the tax structure, Federal Income Tax revenues rose significantly. The top statutory tax rate means nothing with dozens of brackets and copious deductions. Effective tax rates are what is important, and rich folks still increasingly paid the bulk of Federal Income Taxes under Reagan's model.

From 1981 to 1988 the percentage of Federal Income taxes paid by income levels went something like this according to the IRS Statistics of Income:

Top 1% contributed 17.58% in 1981 to 27.58% in 1988

Top 5% contributed 35.06% in 1981 to 45.62% in 1988

Top 10% contributed 47.96% in 1981 to 57.28% in 1988

Top 25% contributed 72.29% in 1981 to 77.84% in 1988

Top 50% contributed 92.55% in 1981 to 94.28% in 1988

Bottom 50% contributed 7.45% in 1981 to 5.72% in 1988

The reality is that the actions taken by Reagan were every bit as "progressive" when it comes to Fed income taxes and the resultant revenues than any other president in modern history.

The reduction in the top marginal tax rate did NOT result in lost revenue which was then "made up" by taxing the SS benefits of the poor or middle class. The meme is simply false and there is no disputing that.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
1  seeder  Freewill    6 years ago

Welcome here is any discussion on this meme, or on any other memes you'd like to bust or see busted.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freewill @1    6 years ago

Hey, Fella! How are you? Missed you!

I got nuttin on Reagonmics...too over the head for me

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
1.1.1  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    6 years ago

Hey TG!  Missed you too!  How have you been?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freewill @1.1.1    6 years ago

peachy and giggly!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2  Bob Nelson    6 years ago

So... Reagan didn't do it... although it happened on his watch.

OK.

(I don't bother to answer the standard RightWacko nonsense about income taxes any more.)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    6 years ago
So... Reagan didn't do it... although it happened on his watch.

So....that's important how??

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    6 years ago

Lots of people ascribe all the events of a Presidency to that President...

... depending of party affiliation, of course...Winking 2

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
2.2  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    6 years ago
So... Reagan didn't do it... although it happened on his watch.

Yes, it most certainly happened on his watch.  He oversaw the lowering of the top marginal tax rate, eliminated most of the 33 brackets that existed at the time, and simplified the Tax Code considerably from what it was before he entered office.  The result being much higher Federal Income Tax revenues than before and a much more "progressive" tax structure.  The IRS keeps pretty good records on this sort of thing.

On the Social Security issue, the policy was aimed at and effected only the top 18% of earners and was meant to stem the bleeding with respect to the solvency of THAT program.

Seems like just the sort on "nonsense" that might interest you. 

In any case, history and the facts prove this meme to be "nonsense", so how would you answer those who continue to perpetuate it?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @2.2    6 years ago

The result being much higher Federal Income Tax revenues than before...

You're joking, right? Party

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
2.2.2  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.1    6 years ago
You're joking, right?

No, not really.  Perhaps exaggerating a bit... who me?

Although here is the raw data and it most certainly went up much higher and at a rate at least a little better than before, particularly after the 1986 major tax reforms. Corporate tax revenues also shot up after the 1986 reforms.  Sure there was a shaky start as Reagan entered office in 81 resulting from the "double-dipper" recessions which started in 1980 and re-struck in 81 through 82 as we rebounded from the stagflation period of the mid to late 1970's.  I remember those times pretty well.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @2.2.2    6 years ago

061518krugman2jumbo1.png

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
2.2.4  DRHunk  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.3    6 years ago

Wow..that's all i can about that.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
2.2.5  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.3    6 years ago

Wow is right DRHunk!  If that chart were at all accurate it would be something.  I am thinking that whoever created it was aiming at a "Look what Trump did!" moment, but unfortunately for him/her that fails on several levels:

1.  The chart appears to show the slide in Federal corporate income tax beginning in mid 2017, but the President did not sign the HR1 tax reform bill until December that year, and it does not become effective until the 2018 tax year.

2.  The chart is supposedly from FRED (St. Louis Fed) based on the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, but an examination of the FRED website indicates that they only have data up through January 2017 when looking at annual revenue data.  HR1 Tax Reform bill does not become effective until the 2018 tax year and likely the annual data will not be available until late 2019 or early 2020 due to the ability of corporations and individuals to file for extension.  So any part of the chart Bob posted after Jan 2017 is merely speculative with respect to annual receipts.  If the chart provided was quarterly data (although it is not marked as such) then it too is speculative as the changes in the tax Code will have changed the way corporations pay taxes on either a quarterly or annual basis, and the data for Q1 2018 is still being compiled.  The final annual data, when it becomes available, will tell the whole story.

3.   HR1 eliminates the previous progressive/graduated corporate tax structure that had a maximum statutory rate of 35% with copious deductions and replaced it with a 21% flat rate with fewer deductions.  No corporation actually paid the 35% max rate before, just as no individual actually paid 70% of their income prior to Reagan's tax reforms.  The HR1 Tax Reform Bill's primary aim was to encourage more companies to do business in the States rather than overseas and to bring that larger tax base and employment back here where companies could still remain profitable against foreign competition.  It remains to be seen how this might impact Federal Corporate tax revenues, but certainly a somewhat smaller percentage of a much larger pie could result in revenues similar to before HR1, or even similar effective corporate tax rates when viewed on average.

If it doesn't work and annual corporate tax revenues plummet, then I will join the "Look what Trump did!" chorus.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
3  Raven Wing    6 years ago

There are many derogatory political memes posted here on NT that I truly dislike. So I simply ignore the ones that use them. While my absence from them does not matter at all, at least I don't have to look at them. But, if I had to make a choice, I prefer not to have any Trump memes, most of which are derogatory or cartoonish, whiich are stupid and worthless. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @3    6 years ago

Not all memes are bad.

b401180fc1468f0f7fd9d0723c211ce2347016c353e63eed0a5d786a4c5d9623.jpg

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.1.1  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    6 years ago
Not all memes are bad.

LOL! Indeed!  Like this one.  The Matrix for old farts like me:

IMG_2411.JPG

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5  Split Personality    6 years ago

memes, the downfall of intelligent discourse.......

the internet, bah humbug

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
6  JumpDrive    6 years ago

Top 1% contributed 17.58% in 1981 to 27.58% in 1988

Top 5% contributed 35.06% in 1981 to 45.62% in 1988

Top 10% contributed 47.96% in 1981 to 57.28% in 1988

Top 25% contributed 72.29% in 1981 to 77.84% in 1988

Top 50% contributed 92.55% in 1981 to 94.28% in 1988

Bottom 50% contributed 7.45% in 1981 to 5.72% in 1988

The reality is that the actions taken by Reagan were every bit as "progressive..."

These data are from the link at the end of this post. My data are also drawn from it.

The seed uses the data to make the tax system progressive, which it is, but it is much, much less progressive than it was. E.g.
In 1981, the income for the top 1% was $149B and they paid $50B in taxes.
In 1988, the income for the top 1% was $474B, and they paid $114B in taxes.
So the tax rate in 1981 was 34%; in 1988 24%. Doing the same calculation for the bottom 50% yields a tax rate decrease of 1.5%. Peanuts for those who really need the money, windfalls for those whose income is almost entirely disposable.

The reduction in the top marginal tax rate did NOT result in lost revenue...

The fact that the government needed to borrow $252B in 1988, but only $90B in 1981 says that these cuts definitely hurt revenue. The biggest drivers of our deficits under GWB & Obama were the Bush tax cuts. With the new cuts expected to add another $1.9T, I don’t know if the GWB cuts are still the biggest drivers. But I do know that for the past 35 years, each time we have a republican president, we vastly increase government borrowing, and each time we have a democratic president, we vastly decrease government borrowing.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1  seeder  Freewill  replied to  JumpDrive @6    6 years ago

Interesting points to be sure.  I agree that when it comes to borrowing and spending the Republican presidents have certainly been no better than the Democrats in the budgets they proposed, and the final bills that emerged from the Congress they had to deal with. The fact that the deficits and debt grew during this time most certainly does NOT "prove that the tax policies hurt revenue".  The spending side is also a factor and was a big factor during that time due to the Cold War and arms race.  For the time period we are discussing the tax policies did NOT result in loss of tax revenue even after factoring out inflation and population growth.  And the fact remains that of the higher levels of Federal Income taxes that were paid, a much larger and increased percentage was paid by the richest tax-payers between 1981 and 1988 when the policies supported by Reagan (and a bi-partisan Congress mind you) were enacted.  Perhaps this little parable might help explain how the math works, although I doubt you'll be impressed (-: 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  • The fifth would pay $1.
  • The sixth would pay $3.
  • The seventh would pay $7.
  • The eighth would pay $12.
  • The ninth would pay $18.
  • The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily lunch by $20.00."  So lunch for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.  So the first four men were unaffected.  They would still eat for free.  But what about the other six men?  How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.  But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat his lunch.

So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

  • And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% off).
  • The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% off).
  • The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% off).
  • The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% off).
  • The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% off).
  • The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% off).

Each of the six was better off than before.  And the first four continued to eat lunch for free.  But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare the amount they got off.

The sixth man said, "I only got $1 off out of the $20 while the tenth man got $10 off!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.  "I only got $1 off, too.  It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.  "Why should he get $10 off, when I got only $2?  The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all.  This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and told him they they were angry that he got so much off while they each got very little.

The next day the tenth man didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and had their lunches without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works.  The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the largest benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.  In fact, they might start eating overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 
 
 
owlsview677
Freshman Silent
6.1.1  owlsview677  replied to  Freewill @6.1    6 years ago

Despite your penchant for dealing with real facts on the internet it is quite pleasing to know that you will still stop by from time to time to share your intellect .

when it comes to borrowing and spending the Republican presidents have certainly been no better than the Democrats in the budgets they proposed, and the final bills that emerged from the Congress they had to deal with.

Most people refuse to understand that the policies that a President spends years putting together don't have any real effect until the next President takes office. Overspending affects our economy much more than tax rates.

Meme's are just another form of politics used to blame the other guy.

Hope you will forgive me for going off topic for a moment but I am really curious to know if you are still playing third base or have moved into a coaching position. Age does have a price:) Hoot ! Hoot !

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.2  seeder  Freewill  replied to  owlsview677 @6.1.1    6 years ago

Owls my old friend, great to see you!  Hope you have been well! What have you been up to since the demise of NV?

As a matter of fact I am BOTH coaching and still playing third base.  Pitching more than I was before as well, as I have finally learned how to actually pitch rather than just throwing the ball as hard as I could toward the catcher.  (-: 

Started coaching Babe Ruth League (13 to 18 yr olds) again this past year or so.  I coached my kids for 12 years up through Babe Ruth and a little in high school, but then took a few years off to watch them play varsity level ball and win a couple championships.  Now that my boys are in college (one already graduated), I thought I'd go back to coaching and participating on the Board with a number of my friends who still coach and sit on the Board.  Funny how times change, most of us Board members and coaches haven't had kids in the league for many years.  Not as much parental involvement as there used to be, so someone has to do it...  It's still a lot of fun, and I enjoy it.  But it takes a lot of time.

As far as a replacement for the "fact dealing" I did at NV, I have tried this place, Minds.com and Google +.  I have become disenchanted with the inability to sustain lengthy discussions at Minds and G+, so I have decided to kick the tires here for awhile.  Lots of familiar faces here, the format is improving greatly with the help of our friend TiG, and Perrie is an absolute gem.  Hope to spend some more time here if I can.  How bout you?

 
 
 
owlsview677
Freshman Silent
6.1.3  owlsview677  replied to  Freewill @6.1.2    6 years ago

It may take up a lot of time but coaching those kids is time better spent and much more enjoyable than being on the net. Being on the Board? Well somebody has to do it :)

Shame about the decline in parental participation yet at the same time I'll bet there are many coaches who are secretly a bit relieved. It's easier to teach sportsmanship.

NT can certainly benefit by your presence but don't expect to find it any different than the rest of the web. I kind of have a special position here which is both amusing and even a bit enjoyable. I'll give you a clue. It is not shall we say politically correct to be a friend of mine. Dealing with me on NV left a lot of people with a good deal of resentment across the board. Considering the origins of this site and the people who are here now it is only to be expected

I am here much more than people realize, just don't comment all that often. The nicest part is that when I do very few trolls come anywhere near me and I have been able to have a few fruitful conversations.

Having traveled all over the net since the demise of NV, (can we all say hallelujah?) , despite the fact that NT is an almost mirror image of NV, make that old NV, this is my favorite site. Nothing happens here that surprises me. NT appears to me to have the best overall balance between left and right available these days.

This meme busting thing you are involved in is pretty cool.

Life is good and the world is getting better. Did I say that? It's true. Trump is having better results than expected which even though I am a supporter I find a bit surprising and puzzling.

Good luck on your pitching. Learn to throw the knuckle ball and you can probably stay at it another ten years and it will be easier on your arm than those bullets you throw from third to first.

My best to you and your awesome family.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.4  seeder  Freewill  replied to  owlsview677 @6.1.3    6 years ago
It is not shall we say politically correct to be a friend of mine

Huh...  Well when have you ever known me to be overly concerned about political correctness Giggle ?  I have friends of every political stripe and I enjoy every one of them regardless of their political opinions, or positions on hot button topics.  Life is too short to be utterly consumed by ideology my friend, and I think we can all listen to, learn from, and even impart wisdom to each other whether we generally agree or disagree.

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.5  lennylynx  replied to  Freewill @6.1.4    6 years ago

Can you please explain what 'wisdom' Trump supporters are imparting to us?  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.5    6 years ago

They are telling us, subliminally, never overtly, that we must only ever look at income tax numbers.

Income tax is all you should ever look at, people!

The fact that income tax is not at all significant for either the rich or the poor is not to be discussed. The fact that the whole tax system, which is so much bigger than just income tax, is skewed to the advantage of the rich... must never be discussed.

Keep the trumpsters ignorant....

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.7  seeder  Freewill  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.5    6 years ago
Can you please explain what 'wisdom' Trump supporters are imparting to us?

Well I can't be entirely sure, but the biggest bit of wisdom might be that there are apparently a great many people who feel like the system is so horribly broken and corrupt, so over the top with "political correctness" and identity politics driving us apart, so trending toward centralized power and away from individual liberty, and the Democratic party so rigged (as evidenced during the primaries), that many would be driven to say "Fuck it!" and vote for someone whom they think might upset the "establishment" apple cart.  Even though that someone is a complete ass at times and can't keep his tweet hole shut.  Perhaps Hillary may have benefited from such wisdom? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Ender  replied to  Freewill @6.1.7    6 years ago
as evidenced during the primaries

Bullshit. There is no evidence that the primary was rigged. This sounds like the stupid hearing today. OMG someone had an opinion...

So trump won because perception was at corruption? trump is the epitome of corruption.

The only thing that trump being president proves to me is that there were no choices.

The only reason to support his idiocy is stupidity.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ender @6.1.8    6 years ago
no evidence

evidence schmevidence!

That is so-o-o-o 20th century.

Just make shit up! Shazaam! No need for "evidence"... Giggle

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.10  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.6    6 years ago
They are telling us, subliminally, never overtly, that we must only ever look at income tax numbers

If by "they" you mean me, I most certainly encourage taking a look at the entirety of the tax system.  I focused on Fed Income taxes only as a means to debunk the subject meme, as that is what the meme addresses.  Certainly payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare primarily), excise and sales taxes are much less "progressive" than are Federal or even State income taxes.  So let's examine the Total Effective Federal Tax Rate which happens to be the first table in the data I presented above. According to the CBO website :

In its analysis, CBO estimates effective tax rates for the four largest sources of federal revenues; individual income taxes, social insurance (payroll) taxes, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes as well as the total effective rate for the four taxes combined . Those taxes account for over 95 percent of total federal revenues.  The analysis does not include federal estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and other miscellaneous receipts.  Nor does it include state and local taxes.  

More data HERE  showing the actual shares of the total federal taxes paid (Total Federal Tax Liabilities) by income level if you care to see them and the breakdowns by revenue type. Whether examining the total Federal effective rates or the total liability percentages, still pretty darn progressive, even during the Reagan reforms and thereafter. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.11  lennylynx  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.6    6 years ago

Yup, the right loves to bleat about 'income tax' when tax is tax and it's all interrelated.  Even payroll tax, which is money taken directly off a worker's income, is ignored.  Ordinary sales tax takes a significant chunk from poor peoples' income, but this too is ignored.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.12  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Ender @6.1.8    6 years ago
Bullshit. There is no evidence that the primary was rigged.

Maybe, maybe not, but when you have two Democrats very close to the process suggesting that it was, then people tend to take notice and might do something rash like vote for the lesser of what they see as two evils.

Earlier Thursday, Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview with CNN that she backed the conclusion by Brazile, the former interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee , that the party’s 2016 presidential primary was “rigged” in favor of Clinton .

Donna Brazile was the Chairwoman of the fricken DNC after Debbie Wasserman Shultz bailed out, and her story is  HERE

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.13  seeder  Freewill  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.11    6 years ago
Even payroll tax, which is money taken directly off a worker's income, is ignored.

Nope, see my post above at 6.1.10 and be sure not to ignore the actual facts.

Ordinary sales tax takes a significant chunk from poor peoples' income, but this too is ignored.

No, it isn't ignored, it just isn't compiled in the total effective federal tax rates or liabilities percentages as most sales taxes are at the state level.  Federal excise taxes are however figured in. 

You know what else takes a significant chunk of poor people's income?  Policies at all levels of government that drive up the cost of consumer goods, food, gasoline, housing and the cost of living in general.  I guarantee you that has a MUCH greater impact on everyone's income (especially those struggling to make ends meet) than sales tax does.  Let's make an effort not to ignore that shall we? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @6.1.10    6 years ago

It's hard to find data that is not polluted by the incessant barrage of misleading "information" about what the rich pay. And I'm not a pack-rat, to store everything that I see. (I'd never find it again, anyway... confused )

From ITEP :

WPTiAgraph21.jpg

to be confronted with:

IncomebyQuintileChart21.jpg

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.11    6 years ago

The topics that must never be mentioned are capital gains and carry forward...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freewill @6.1.12    6 years ago

Semantics, guys!

Before you start shredding each other... you might want to examine your definitions of "rigged". I'm willing to bet that the two of you don't mean the same thing.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.1.17  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.16    6 years ago

You are probably right Bob, but I don’t intend to shred anybody over it. Thinking 2

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.2  seeder  Freewill  replied to  JumpDrive @6    6 years ago
The seed uses the data to make the tax system progressive, which it is, but it is much, much less progressive than it was

Nope.  See the properly calculated data on Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rates from the CBO - HERE .  Second table down.  Note the jumps in 1987 after the major 1986 Tax Reform Bill passed the bi-partisan Congress and was signed by Reagan.  The effective rates were already quite progressive but became even more so with sharp increases for those above the 4th quintile, while all other quintiles saw a drop in effective rate.  The bottom quintile even going negative as a result of that new policy. 

Aside from just the effective rates, you have already seen the data on on the rapid increase in the percentage of the total Federal income tax revenue actually paid by the different quintiles during that time.  Clearly considerable increases in percentages paid by the rich indicating truly progressive results, rivaled perhaps only by the the increases in the mid 90's by President Clinton and the Republican Congress at the time. 

The bottom line being that the reforms put in place by Reagan go far beyond just the reduction of the top marginal rate and ultimately resulted in a more progressive system that continued into the 90's.  The results as to which quintiles actually contribute the most to the total income tax revenue (not to mention other forms of revenue like corporate taxes) over time are more indicative of an increasingly progressive system than are comparisons of marginal or even effective rates for just the top 1% over time. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
6.2.1  JumpDrive  replied to  Freewill @6.2    6 years ago
Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rates from the CBO - HERE

I Looked at the chart and the effective rate on the top 1% was 31.8% in 1981 and 29.7% in 1988. However, in 1981, the top 1%’s income was $149B with $50B paid in taxes which is 34%. So not far off from the 31.8%. But, in 1988 their income was $474B with $114B in taxes = 24%, which is way less than 29.7%. So it looks like the top 1% was able to dramatically decrease their taxable income. Since the effective rate is on taxable income, it looks like they didn’t do nearly as well as they actually did.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8  MrFrost    6 years ago

Raygun was also the first president to saddle the USA with a debt, which increased by 218% on his watch. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
8.1  seeder  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @8    6 years ago

I agree, although it was more like 186% when considering the shift in budget years between presidents. And come on, the first?  I'd be remiss not to point out that FDR's debt increase was 1048%, and Woodrow Wilson's 727%.  Still not a good result for one who touted smaller government.  Arms races are not good on the old wallet, nor are wars, cold or otherwise.  President Obama holds the record for the greatest dollar amount debt increase $8.59 trillion, with a near super majority in Congress his first term as well.  Although Trump is certainly doing his best to shatter that record so far.  SMH

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Freewill @8.1    6 years ago
FDR's debt increase was 1048%, and Woodrow Wilson's 727%

didn't we fund WW1 and WWII to do that?

Good to see you here again!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
8.1.2  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.1    6 years ago
didn't we fund WW1 and WWII to do that?

Sure.  That was certainly a big part of it.  As was the Cold War in the Reagan era.  Which of course was my point.  Winking 2

Great to see you here as well!  How have you been my friend?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Freewill @8.1.2    6 years ago

Well, I'm still here.

Some cheer that fact and others lament it, lol.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
8.1.4  seeder  Freewill  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.3    6 years ago
Some cheer that fact and others lament it

Well, I for one cheer it.  You two are the best! Thumbs Up 2

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Ender  replied to  Freewill @8.1.4    6 years ago

I tried Minds, just couldn't really get into it. Last time I looked at lairds google+site, it always seems to be the same couple of people. I haven't seen laird or Soph there in a long time. I like opposing views and not an echo chamber.

As far as memes, anyone could make one to say just about anything. Every once in a while there might be a funny one. Other than that I usually brush them off.

 
 
 
owlsview677
Freshman Silent
9  owlsview677    6 years ago

Great galloping Galapagos Turtles. Is it any wonder that tax accountants ingest more Excedrin than any other profession? (undocumented) Following this conversation and tracking down all of the various links was a massive undertaking.

In other words, a great conversation. But it leaves me feeling like a judge in an old time T.V. show.(Perry Mason-Matlock-etc.) What foxhole is the next rabbit going to jump out of?

Meme busted. In my opinion. No I have no intention of going into any detailed reasons as to why. The topic has been hashed and rehashed and no need for me to rehash it again. Major points for both sides dependent upon subjective interpretations.

I do have two other take aways.

First is that Freewill's "Meme Busting" project(?) can be useful and informative. Trying to prove or disprove a Meme requires an in depth view of the facts surrounding the topic of the Meme.

Second, our whole Federal system of acquiring monies from citizens, income taxes, excise taxes, fees etc. is so completely convoluted that it needs to be shredded, burned and atomized. To bad there is no way to do it all in one fell swoop.

Did I say two? Well, here is a third. We need to put a strict limit on the number of lawyers allowed to serve in government in any way, not just Congress and no lawyers should be allowed anywhere near anything that has to do with our money. Sarcasm? Of course, but not without some merit.

 
 

Who is online




bugsy
Jeremy Retired in NC
Sean Treacy
CB


72 visitors