Kansas proved lower taxes doesn't work

Obnoxious is not an argument...

The fact remains that Reagan cut taxes on the rich nearly in half ...raised them on everyone else...and STILL managed to triple the deficit. THOSE facts are easily documented and if you claim they are false I will gladly make a fool of you.

And save the name calling eh?

 

When you actually get down to it...there just isn't that much spending that CAN be cut without causing tremendous harm

 

Yes, let's raise taxes. Then I can't afford college for my kids. I can become a liberal and demand free college for everyone.

I can go from being a maker to a taker!

 

Yea...that couple thousand will make all the difference to someone making well into six figures...

 

Stop posting lies, or don't. The mere act of repeating obvious, union label lie narratives loses. You lose and will keep losing. Every time you double down on the lies, another reasonable American jumps on the Trump Train.

 

And again with the name calling.

Any further will be reported. I suppose the name calling and bombast convinces you that your arguments have "some" basis. I doubt it convinces anyone else

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% down to 28% and capital gains from 40% down to 8%.

Is that the lie you're claiming?

Obviously not

 

Was it the claim that Reagan tripled the deficit?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_1990USb_18s2li011mcn_G0f

Nope it can't be that

 

As for raising taxes on the middle class and poor

the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down

 

Sanskrit ought to be feeling a little chastened after having been shown to be either ignorant or dishonest...although I doubt he will b

 

Reagan (the US CONGRESS in bipartisan action) reduced the number of tax BRACKETS, and did in fact reduce the top BRACKET from 70% to 28%. That's not the rate, and that's certainly not "reducing taxes" generally. You don't seem to know the difference between taxes as a whole, tax rates, and tax brackets. There are immense differences. But we both know you are just trying to squirm and change the semantics with the above quote... because you know full well your earlier statements aren't true.

You claimed that Reagan CUT TAXES on the rich by half and RAISED TAXES on the middle class (and start backing from that in the above quote for all to see... slimy, typical). HE DID NEITHER. CONGRESS reduced the BRACKETS while simultaneously removing the shelters, loopholes and deductions that allowed EVERYONE to AVOID the HIGH BRACKETS in the past. SO YES, omitting that utterly necessary context is a LIE OF OMISSION, and anyone who persists in it after being educated otherwise is either trolling or a liar. Still not clear? Expressed in another way, the bracket could have been 99%, and under the prevailing loopholes, shelters and deductions, NO ONE PAID AT THAT BRACKET. Reagan absolutely did NOT "cut taxes on the rich nearly in half." Still not clear? It doesn't matter what the bracket is if the brackets are avoidable using unlimited deductions. Getting it yet? A child could. Hope you do. Sad if you don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

Above are the comprehensive facts of the 1986 IRC Reform in context. This, for a change, is an accurate, nonpartisan wiki page, probably because accountant and lawyer editors monitor it for public union partisan BS.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/231728-on-capital-gains-obama-is-no-Reagan

This link above describes the Reagan Admin capital gains tax history accurately, proving your claim above flat wrong.

WHEN did Reagan reduce the capital gains tax from 40% to 8%? NEVER. HE DID NOT DO THAT. In fact he (CONGRESS) -raised- cap gains to the same as income tax in 1986. You are now educated as to the truth, so will expect you not to repeat misinformation. If you do repeat misinformation purposefully, such as "Reagan cut capital gains from 40% to 8%" again, you will be purposefully LYING.

Turning to your other false claim, "Reagan raised taxes on the middle class," WRONG AGAIN. 6 million poor were removed from the tax rolls entirely. The bottom bracket was raised slightly, but the amount of income subject to it was greatly increased, decreasing income previously subject to higher brackets, a net tax cut. The standard deduction, personal exemption and earned income credit were expanded. Those are all middle income tax breaks. You have now been educated as to the truth, so will expect you not to repeat misinformation further. If you do repeat misinformation purposefully, that Reagan increased taxes on the middle class, you will be purposefully LYING.

If you ask honest accountants or attorneys of ANY political stripe, Republican or Democrat, they will tell you that the 1986 IRC Reforms were a great step forward for US tax policy, were revenue neutral if not positive, and were not the unilateral action of a President, but the overall action of Congress and the President.

In the distance of time, moronic public union PR lie narrative creators, walking, talking fecal matter, have "reimagined" the actual facts of the 1986 IRC Tax Reform as "Reagan Tax Cuts." This is a lie narrative. You have now been educated... So to make crystal clear:

1. Reagan did nothing alone. A bipartisan Congress did, Democrat House, GOP Senate. The bill was sponsored by DEMOCRATS, Gephardt, one of the biggest s-head partisan Democrats in US history, and Bill Bradley in the Senate. The 1986 IRC Reform was a GOVERNMENT, not a Reagan action. This is an irrefutable fact, not an opinion. Repeat "Reagan Tax Cuts" in an effort to lay some kind of blame on the GOP or Reagan alone and you will be LYING.
2. The 1986 Reform was revenue neutral at least, and probably positive, by balancing streamlined brackets with removal of shelters, deductions, and beefing up the AMT. It was NOT a tax cut for the rich or a tax increase for the middle class. This is an irrefutable fact of US tax policy history. Repeat "Reagan cut taxes for the rich in half and raised taxes on the middle class" and you will be not only a liar, but a union label shill moron. Choice is yours, tell the truth or lie, honest or shill. Entirely up to you.

Go ahead and report me as much as you like. Post lies, intentional misstatements of well-documented fact and law towards partisan intent, and I will call you out for it. You will not like the results when I start banging the report button on every one of your substanceless, trolling, derailing, one liner posts.

 

did in fact reduce the top BRACKET from 70% to 28%

Any way you slice it that's a HUGE tax cut for the very rich.

To deny that is to lie

 

Every time you or someone like you repeats a LIE like the above, here or elsewhere, another center voter disgusted with the union label lie narratives of the left becomes "anything but Democrat." So keep it up!

 

WHEN did Reagan reduce the capital gains tax from 40% to 8%

That was a typo. It should have read - Reagan reduced the capital gains tax from 40% to 28%

If you had bothered to read the link provided you would have known that

ANOTHER huge tax cut for the very rich

 

A link was provided. That makes YOU the liar.

 

I'm done with this off-topic derail. Post on topic or not. If you want to start a Reagan Tax Policy thread, do so, this isn't it. Any further derails from you will be reported.

 

Save your threats. What's being discussed is REPUBLICAN tax policy and the historical failure thereof.

 

You are funny.
You call "off topic", then proceed to post off topic (with venom, not facts).

 

Um, the economy of Kansas is not as diverse as the US, just in case you didn't know.

 

Hardly matters.

Every time this kind of voodoo economics has been tried it has failed in exactly the same way

 

This is mostly horse crap. Federal tax receipts doubled under Reagan unfortunately federal spending more than tripled.

 

Still not very aware of economics eh? The only thing that saved Clinton's butt and gave the left their retarded talking point was the dot com bubble. After it collapsed Clinton's taxes just made the collapse worse.

 

"It was the combination of stable money and the tax rate cuts to reward work and business creation that the economy soared starting in late 1982. From 1982-89 the economy (adjusted for inflation) grew by more than one-third. How good is that? Under Obama the economy has limped forward at about one-seventh its previous size. The difference is a $3 trillion growth gap between Reagan and Obama. That’s about the size of France."

LOL - at all the liberals bashing Reagan.

The next lesson is that tax rate reductions increase work and investment. In the 1980s, we had quarters with 8% growth and months with one million jobs created — multiples higher than Obama has come close to achieving.‎ Tax rate reductions increased the share of taxes paid by the rich.

 

You were kicking the crap out of him and his fables. He would have more credibility if he started each post with "Once upon a time...."

 

That is false, but you know that already.

"Reagan cut the rates from a high of 70% down to 28%. The result was record growth, a doubling of tax revenues from 1981-1990 and a huge increase in taxes paid by “the rich.”

So much for your mythology. Class dismissed.