1980s Fiscal Policy

[canceled.2021.1]

One of our more uneducated leftist members has stated that it is his desire to return to the fiscal policy of 1980. Here is the exchange so that there is NO confusion. Said member was asked repeatedly if that is in fact what they meant and if they wanted to qualify their statement in any way. The answer was always the same. This person wanted to return to the fiscal policy of 1980.

Moron, I already told you exactly what I would like to see:

Erasing the last 40 years of fiscal policy, and returning us to the fiscal policy we had in 1980.

I said this before, and for some reason you cannot understand that or you're just being a sophist.

So which is it? Are you an ignoramus or an asshole?

Erase 40 years of fiscal policy?

Are you sure? That is exactly what you want? You don't want to narrow that down a bit?

Just want to double check

Nope. No need.

Just erase everything that has happened to the tax code since 1980.

It's that easy.

Yup.

Remove all Conservative fingerprints on the tax code, erase Conservatism from history, isolate its adherents in society, and move on without you.

So what would the fiscal policy of 1980 look like?

Let's first look at taxes. Below are the Marginal Tax rates for Married Couples filing Jointly for 1980. Because I am intellectually honest, I am presenting the income ranges in 2019 inflation adjusted dollars


0.0% $0 to $10,488
14% $10,488 to $16,966
16% $16,966 to $23,444
18% $23,444 to $36,709
21% $36,709 to $49,357
24% $49,357 to $62,313
28% $62,313 to $75,886
32% $75,886 to $92,235
37% $92,235 to $108,585
43% $108,585 to $141,284
49% $141,284 to $185,088
54% $185,088 to $264,060
59% $264,060 to $337,478
64% $337,478 to $500,973
68% $500,973 to $663,235
70% $663,235 and above

Now how would that impact a Married Couple filing jointly compared today's tax brackets? Well, someone making $50,000 a year would see their federal income tax go from 12% to 24%. I bolded it for your ease of use

10% $0 to $19,400
12% $19,401 to $78,950
22% $78,951 to $168,400
24% $168,401 to $321,450
32% $321,451 to $408,200
35% $408,200 to $612,350
37% $612,351 and above


Now let's look at the Revenues and Expenditures for 1980 in Inflation Adjusted Dollars

Revenue: $1,595,194,449,111
Outlays: $1,820,040,387,722


You know what? I think I can get on board with this plan. It satisfies my desire to have more people paying taxes and broadening the tax base. More importantly, it would SLASH gobblement spending at the federal level.

See, something we can agree on.

 

[LV426]

One of our more uneducated leftist members has stated that it is his desire to return to the fiscal policy of 1980. Here is the exchange so that there is NO confusion. Said member was asked repeatedly if that is in fact what they meant and if they wanted to qualify their statement in any way. The answer was always the same. This person wanted to return to the fiscal policy of 1980.











So what would the fiscal policy of 1980 look like?

Let's first look at taxes. Below are the Marginal Tax rates for Married Couples filing Jointly for 1980. Because I am intellectually honest, I am presenting the income ranges in 2019 inflation adjusted dollars


0.0% $0 to $10,488
14% $10,488 to $16,966
16% $16,966 to $23,444
18% $23,444 to $36,709
21% $36,709 to $49,357
24% $49,357 to $62,313
28% $62,313 to $75,886
32% $75,886 to $92,235
37% $92,235 to $108,585
43% $108,585 to $141,284
49% $141,284 to $185,088
54% $185,088 to $264,060
59% $264,060 to $337,478
64% $337,478 to $500,973
68% $500,973 to $663,235
70% $663,235 and above

Now how would that impact a Married Couple filing jointly compared today's tax brackets? Well, someone making $50,000 a year would see their federal income tax go from 12% to 24%. I bolded it for your ease of use

10% $0 to $19,400
12% $19,401 to $78,950
22% $78,951 to $168,400
24% $168,401 to $321,450
32% $321,451 to $408,200
35% $408,200 to $612,350
37% $612,351 and above


Now let's look at the Revenues and Expenditures for 1980 in Inflation Adjusted Dollars

Revenue: $1,595,194,449,111
Outlays: $1,820,040,387,722


You know what? I think I can get on board with this plan. It satisfies my desire to have more people paying taxes and broadening the tax base. More importantly, it would SLASH gobblement spending at the federal level.

See, something we can agree on.

Total sophistry here.

Do you think the tax rates of 1980 applied to incomes of 2019 would result in the same revenue collected in 1980?

What a fucking idiot.

 

[LV426]

You know what? I think I can get on board with this plan. It satisfies my desire to have more people paying taxes and broadening the tax base. More importantly, it would SLASH gobblement spending at the federal level. See, something we can agree on.

You think that, but you'd be wrong.

But that's fine, I'm OK playing out this scenario if you are.

Let's return to the fiscal policy of 1980 and see how things work out.

NOTE: Fiscal policy doesn't include spending, it's purely budgetary and with regard to tax policy.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Total sophistry here.

Do you think the tax rates of 1980 applied to incomes of 2019 would result in the same revenue collected in 1980?

What a fucking idiot.

I didn't make that claim. I am merely showing you the numbers from 1980. You said you wanted to go back to the FISCAL policy of 1980. I have provided your quotes. I asked you multiple times to clarify and provide specifics. You said that you were specific enough.

These are the fiscal policies of 1980 taxing and spending are fiscal policies.

You seem to be backtracking now. Why am I not surprised.

BTW are you OK with doubling the tax burden on someone making $50,000/year? That is after all, what you are proposing is it not?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You think that, but you'd be wrong.

But that's fine, I'm OK playing out this scenario if you are.

Let's return to the fiscal policy of 1980 and see how things work out.

NOTE: Fiscal policy doesn't include spending, it's purely budgetary and with regard to tax policy.

Fiscal policy IS spending my friend. You say so in your post. When one makes a budget it has everything to do with SPENDING. So like I said, I am fully on board with spending as much as we did in 1980 adjusted for inflation as I did to be intellectually honest which you my friend are not

 

[LV426]

I am merely showing you the numbers from 1980

Exactly. 1980, not 2019.

You're not applying 1980 tax rates to 2019 income, you're applying 1980 tax to 1980 income and adjusting for inflation. But that's not even close to how you can determine what revenue would be under 1980 rates in 2019 incomes.

So you chose the laziest fucking way possible to make an argument.

 

[LV426]

These are the fiscal policies of 1980 taxing and spending are fiscal policies.

No, they're not.

You're moving the goalposts now because you realized the YUGE fucking mistake you just made.

 

[anonymoose]

You think that, but you'd be wrong.

But that's fine, I'm OK playing out this scenario if you are.

Let's return to the fiscal policy of 1980 and see how things work out.

NOTE: Fiscal policy doesn't include spending, it's purely budgetary and with regard to tax policy.

"Fiscal policy" is such a broad term it's meaningless. At least ILA did his homework with inflation adjusted tax rates.

 

[LV426]

IYou seem to be backtracking now. Why am I not surprised.

I didn't backtrack.

You chose to take a lazy route to your argument, and pointing that out has nothing to do with me.

BTW are you OK with doubling the tax burden on someone making $50,000/year? That is after all, what you are proposing is it not?

That's right. But they're getting far more back by way of government spending, like Medicare for All so they don't have to spend money on health insurance, free public college so they don't have to spend money on education, a green new deal so they have jobs, and an expansion of Social Security, so they can retire at an earlier age.

 

[LV426]

Fiscal policy IS spending my friend.

No, it's not.

You say so in your post.

No I didn't.

When one makes a budget it has everything to do with SPENDING.

Not when we're talking about tax rates.

So you're trying to pretend I was talking about spending, when all I said was that we would erase 40 years of fiscal policy with regard to taxes. I said that twice.

I can't help it that you are functionally illiterate.

 

[LV426]

"Fiscal policy" is such a broad term it's meaningless.

Fine.

 

[Irish Exit]

It wasn't until 81 that the IRS allowed allowed 401K salary deductions so said poster is advocating wiping out everybody's primary retirement vehicle and a sixth of the stock market right off the bat. Sounds like a plan.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I didn't backtrack.

You chose to take a lazy route to your argument, and pointing that out has nothing to do with me.




That's right. But they're getting far more back by way of government spending, like Medicare for All so they don't have to spend money on health insurance, free public college so they don't have to spend money on education, a green new deal so they have jobs, and an expansion of Social Security, so they can retire at an earlier age.

You are too stupid to realize that your deceit has just been exposed. It is proof that the whole "tax the rich" scheme is a ruse to stick it to the middle class because let's be honest that is where the money is. It isn't with the uber rich

 

[LV426]

It wasn't until 81 that the IRS allowed allowed 401K salary deductions so said poster is advocating wiping out everybody's primary retirement vehicle and a sixth of the stock market right off the bat. Sounds like a plan.

401k's are a scam, and the market is "over-inflated", right? Isn't that what you all said throughout Obama?

5 Ways A 401(k) Isn't As Good As A Pension
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattca...-401k-isnt-as-good-as-a-pension/#f8af0e567f23

 

[LV426]

You are too stupid to realize that your deceit has just been exposed. It is proof that the whole "tax the rich" scheme is a ruse to stick it to the middle class because let's be honest that is where the money is. It isn't with the uber rich

The only deceit here is your intellectual dishonesty when trying to argue against a return to the tax policies pre-Reagan.

You sought to make your argument by simply adjusting everything for inflation, which is the laziest fucking way possible to do it, not to mention the most innacurate.

You tried to apply 1980's rates to 1980's incomes by using an inflation multiplier.

That's not how you can accurately determine what the revenue would be using 1980's rates applied to 2019 income.

Laziness is your dominant character trait.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No, it's not.




No I didn't.




Not when we're talking about tax rates.

So you're trying to pretend I was talking about spending, when all I said was that we would erase 40 years of fiscal policy with regard to taxes. I said that twice.

I can't help it that you are functionally illiterate.

It is not my fault that you do not understand the meaning of terms.

Fiscal policy includes spending numnuts

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiscalpolicy.asp

What is Fiscal Policy
Fiscal policy refers to the use of government spending and tax policies to influence macroeconomic conditions, including aggregate demand, employment, inflation and economic growth.


Here is another link with the same definition

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

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Here is what Toby originally said

Moron, I already told you exactly what I would like to see:

Erasing the last 40 years of fiscal policy, and returning us to the fiscal policy we had in 1980.

I said this before, and for some reason you cannot understand that or you're just being a sophist.

So which is it? Are you an ignoramus or an asshole?

Not making this up folks

 

[LV426]

You are too stupid to realize that your deceit has just been exposed.

By you using only an inflation multiplier? How so? The distribution of income in 2019 isn't the same as it was in 1980, and you know that. So you're choosing to omit that from your argument for the simplicity of just multiplying everything in 1980 by the same inflation multiplier.

Which is not the way to determine tax liability using 1980's policy applied to 2019 incomes.

So we must ask the question; why are you doing it that way?

The answer is because you don't know any other way to do it because no one taught you.

 

[LV426]

Not making this up folks

Never said you did.

What you tried to do was shoehorn your own definition of "fiscal policy" into the debate while lazily applying inflation multipliers inaccurately.

You can't simply just use an inflation multiplier on 40-year old figures because the distribution of income in 1980 is way different than 2019.

You didn't account for that, you just thought the same applied consistently despite the income gains for the top 1% over the last 40 years. And you did that because you're fucking lazy.

 

[Irish Exit]

401k's are a scam, and the market is "over-inflated", right? Isn't that what you all said throughout Obama?

5 Ways A 401(k) Isn't As Good As A Pension
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattca...-401k-isnt-as-good-as-a-pension/#f8af0e567f23

It is what I have said throughout Trump. Doesn't change that a lot of people have a lot of money in them to the point they are about a 6th of the US stock market's value. It is also why privatizing social security would be a mistake, but whatevers. Considering how many pension plans have gone belly up, an inflated value 401K is still better than an "Oops sorry you didn't retire before the thing went insolvent so this letter is all you are getting" letter from PBGC.