What are you talking about? In that time period, for the dollars earned in excess of 250k, those high end earners had a 91% tax rate. Where do you get your information?
So you're saying nobody paid those taxes in the highest bracket?

Reagan's tax cuts had little to do with the economic expansion of the '80s. The business cycle coupled with Paul Volcker's work as Chrmn of the Fed helped make that possible.

Reagan raised taxes 7 times in his 8 years in office including the single largest tax increase in history.

Supply-side economics is snake oil.

Reagan raised taxes like a maniac after cutting the tax rates irresponsibly (without cutting spending).

He was a disaster for the government's long-term fiscal outlook.

Agreed, well pretend they are for the sake of argument.

Indeed but it isn't really apples/oranges because we're comparing total GDP/Avg.Marginal Rate. So the numbers apply directly even if they don't reflect the totality of net revenue. So while it may leave some information out it's still apples/apples because one is a function of the other.

Indeed. When citing tax information I typically look for sources that don't include social security because I'm of the opinion it should be abolished due to gross mismanagement.

Correct sir. But how does this relate?

__________________

Not really. Because income taxes represent only a portion of total tax revenue, changes elsewhere in the system could swamp or mask the effect of changing income-tax rates. You simply cannot look at overall revenue and draw meaningful conclusions about marginal rates.

Fine. But my point was that marginal rates are only a small part of the *income-tax* system. So even if were discussing just income-tax revenues, not total revenues, you'd need additional data before you could draw meaningful conclusions about the effect of changing marginal rates.

For instance, most of the time politicians work to keep revenue stable. So if they cut the marginal rate, they'll raise taxes elsewhere (by closing loopholes, eliminating deductions or simply raising a different income tax) to make up the lost revenue. Thus you will often see little or no difference in revenue whether the marginal rates are raised or lowered.

You asked "why bother"? It's a reason to bother changing rates that has nothing to do with raising or lowering revenue.

__________________
Man up.

Look no further than Jimmy Carter's policies and results to find your answer!

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

Can someone explain how the argument that the top 1% already pays something like 40% of the taxes is valid if they make something like 80% of the income? And they most likely have additional wealth in investments, stocks, etc.?

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither

Obama's economic plan is closer to Bill Clinton's than Carter's.

We all know how the Clinton economic performance went.

no matter how you justify it is unfair , until the welfare system is overhauled to include the welfare to corporations , I do not mind helping the truly needy but layabouts and giveme girls just (*)(*)(*)(*) me off

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43

How is it unfair? Please elaborate.

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither

I should not have to supplement anyone else's income okay Robin Hood !!!!

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43

You are right sir that income tax only represents a portion of total federal revenues, but alot of people might be wondering what percent?



So 'if' we accept this information it would mean that 93.6% of total federal revenue comes from income taxes both corporate and private and social security. With that being said I'd submit that looking at marginal rates and total revenues gives us a decent overview.

I was going to write more, but work caused me to lose my train of thought.

__________________