Welcome to PatsFans.com

Finally, proof that Reaganonics works

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Just look how great our economy is doing. Thanks to low taxes, the rich are really pumping money into the economy and generating lots of good-paying jobs.

    Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically - Yahoo! News

    WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

    The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

    ...

    Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

    Schoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23

    Taxes for the rich are at their lowest point since 1029, and have been so for 4 years now.. anything trickling down yet.

    As long as half of congress is millionaires nothing will ever change, they like the status quo.. conflict of interest??


    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)

    $451.1 million



    Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)

    $435.4 million



    Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)

    $366.2 million



    Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)

    $294.9 million



    Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)

    $285.1 million



    Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

    $283.1 million



    Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)

    $231.2 million



    Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)

    $201.5 million



    Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)

    $136.2 million



    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

    $108.1 million
  3. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,243
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Finally, proof that Reaganonics works

    It does, i'm still waiting to get Trickled on. :mad:
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2011
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23

    No you are getting pissed on, that is not a trickle at all.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Are the righties silent? Perhaps they think that the taxes of the wealthy need to be gut even more?
  6. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,243
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Don't trickle down my back and tell me its raining.
  7. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  8. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    Raising taxes on the super rich is fine. Then again $250k a year isn't super rich and the guy paying $2k on $200k isn't nearly a representative sample.
  9. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I found this a while ago and thought it was interesting. This analysis suggests that the top 10% of earners in the USA have a larger tax burden than essentially any other country when looking at share of taxes versus share of income.

    The Tax Foundation - No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.

    This is a biased site and I have not had a chance to look at the cited study but I thought it an interesting analysis, claiming that the rich are better off from a tax burden perspective in places like Sweden than the USA.

    More to your point Patters I'd like to see rates stay where they are or drop a bit more but compensate by simplifying the tax code and removing the ability of the top % to find loopholes that reduce their overall rate, as in the work you cited (where its down to 17% from 26%).

    I just wish someone was smart enough to offer such a plan... Yep, that sure would be nice, and even better if they tried to address the long term solvency of our social programs as well. I'm sure the President would look at such a plan as a great opportunity to live up to his campaign promises and work across the aisle and would NEVER resort to political attacks that distort the truth only to serve his reelection hopes...

    Haha no seriously though cut rates and close loopholes, if it brings in the same amount of revenue, and we ensure the creative accounting goes away, that's good for everyone, right?
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    Reagan hasn't been president for well over 20 years.

    We've had 10 years of pub admins, and 10 years of dem admins over the last 20.

    If we're talking Reganonics, then what about Clintonomics, Bushonomics, and Obamanomics.

    Wow, 45% of income earners don't pay any taxes. That's almost half of the income earning population.

    The question I have with respect to the article is what they are including as "income". Yes the top rate is 35%, but are they including income subject to capital gains? It's not clear.

    To me, based on the limited information given in the article, it's clear that we need to restructure and simplify our tax code. There are simply far too many deductions available. Flat, or Fair tax anyone?
  11. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,783
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    The "tax burden" on the super rich makes me think about the burden the NFL owners suffers with. Tragic, isn't it :rolleyes:
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Didn't you know the argument for lower taxes for the rich is that they will pump more money into the economy? Didn't you know the capital tax rate is only 15%? It appears that lower tax rates on the very wealthy don't pump up the economy. That's the point. The only reason to give the wealthy a low tax rate is because you feel compassion for them, and perhaps you do since you seem to be complaining about the 45% of those who don't pay income tax (probably because they're poor). Do you think we should tax the poor at a higher rate and further lower the tax on the rich? Is that your point? If not, what is your point?

    And Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    Everyone should have the same tax rate, why discriminate against someone for being successful financially? Discrimination is bad, equal protection under the law, including the tax laws.

    Discrimination is bad. The reason for a complicated tax code is to facilitate corruption among elected official, who sell favors for campaign donations.
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Why should someone who earns $1 million/year have to pay 10x as much as someone who earns $100,000/year? What's fair about that? Why are you embracing such unfairness?
  15. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,324
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +119 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Cool story.

    Sorry, someone making $1 million pays more than 10x the federal income taxes that someone making $100 grand pays.

    To keep this simple, lets assume two single people: Person A ($100k) and Person B ($1 million).

    To further keep it simple, assume that they are both single and don't itemize deductions. That leaves a standard exemption of $3,650 and standard deduction of $5,700. For Person A, that leaves taxable income of $90,650 and a tax liability of $19,098. For Person B, that leaves taxable income of $990,650 and a tax liability of $324,371.25. That is just a hair under 17X.
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,113
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +328 / 6 / -8

    Here's another way to look at it.

    Let's say family A has a pizza with eight slices for a day's food supply, for four people. That's a slice for lunch and a slice for dinner, no breakfast.

    Then you take two pieces away, so they make do with six slices, four people, two meals.

    Now, let's say family B had 20 pizzas, four people, two meal. Instead of taking away 2 pieces (1/4 of a pizza, like family A) or even 5 full pies (1/4 of all the pizza family B has,) you take away 6 pizzas, leaving family B with 14 pizzas for 4 people, for 2 meals.

    There are two standards of fairness being discussed:

    One standard is that Family A and Family B both lose 1/4 of 1 pizza.

    One standard is that Family A and Family B both should lose 1/4 all their pizza.

    These solutions are considered fair.

    I do not know that it's fair, but to me, it would seem right if family B gave up a greater percentage of their pizza than family A.

    But this is far more reality-based than anyone would expect the locals on this board to get.

    PFnV
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    I was responding to pf13's argument in favor a flat tax. Yes, right now, using his reasoning our tax system is unfair; but with a flat tax it would still be unfair (using his reasoning). My point is simply that you don't address unfairness with taxes, you address it by creating opportunities. The wealthy person who pays high taxes has a far greater opportunity to go after that tax revenue by investing in the companies that stand to benefit from tax dollars.
  18. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Sorry to nitpick, but I'd say it's far more accurate to assert that we've had 31 straight years of corporate presidency. Are we suggesting Clinton's policy strayed very far from "trickle down?" I, for one, sure don't see it that way.

    In fact, since JFK, we've had what, four years of true liberalism in the White House at all? That's a whole lot of pro-corporation emperors though.

    Please don't pretend Bill Clinton's 8-years was some radical deviation from Reagonomics (military cuts aside).

    What about them? The SEC is still largely weightless, our judicial system corrupted, and accounting fraud is still an embraced business practice for all. It's rather awesome at this point.

    My overall point is, not much fundamentally has changed since Reagan took office and "cleansed" the White House.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>