Reagan's Boom

Topspin said:
Duhla, you call me a dick in reaction to having your ass handed to you on the economis.
So I called you a cunt, which in the manner I'm using the word you were being.
Class dissmed,
Click to expand...

Can you point to where on this thread I had "my ass handed to me"

because it looks to me like the reverse is was happened. I have yet to see you refute one thing I've said on this thread. You were completely lost once you realized what Kudrow did with the years.

I called you a dick Top, because you are one. You can't make a post without insulting someone, in the most condescending manner. You call people names, do not refute their points, and then close with "I'm rich, Victory for Top!" and act like you accomplished something.

The only thing you ever accomplish is displaying that you're a conceded jerk, who is so insecure that he can't make two posts on an anonymous message board without mentioning how much money he made, and calling someone else a loser.
 
"And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday. "

And I addressed those increases... they were not increases on income taxes. They were increases on corporations, foundations. The SS "tax increase" simply adjusted the numbers to current dollars by adjusting for inflation. The gas tax was a consumption tax.
 
Cypress said:
Great call damo. I've read up on the "JFK" tax cuts (actually, the Tax cuts LBJ passed), and they weren't strictly akin to classic "supply side" economics. There was a Keynsian element to the JFK and LBJ policies.

And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday.

So, it's far more complicated than saying supply side tax cuts caused the booms in the 1960s and 1980s. In fact, Cons have been getting the facts and timing wrong on the "JFK tax cuts" for years, before I caught them. ;)
Click to expand...

And note the fact that many of Regans tax cuts targeted specific industries or even corporations based on how they were wirtten. For some of the cuts only one company fit the criteria for the cut.....
 
Superfreak said:
"And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday. "

And I addressed those increases... they were not increases on income taxes. They were increases on corporations, foundations. The SS "tax increase" simply adjusted the numbers to current dollars by adjusting for inflation. The gas tax was a consumption tax.
Click to expand...

And I posted from the CBO, that payroll taxes increased enough under Reagan, to not only offset the decrease in income tax, but to raise the overall tax burden on the middle class. So to claim that they were all on "corporations and foundations" isn't exactly true.
 
Superfreak said:
"And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday. "

And I addressed those increases... they were not increases on income taxes. They were increases on corporations, foundations. The SS "tax increase" simply adjusted the numbers to current dollars by adjusting for inflation. The gas tax was a consumption tax.
Click to expand...

consumption tax ? Whatever, a tax is a tax.

didn't Reagan also sign into law the official spending of the SS surplus as general revenue ? And was the first to use that surplus to "balance" the budget ? Or am I mistaken on that ?
 
Last edited:
"And I posted from the CBO, that payroll taxes increased enough under Reagan, to not only offset the decrease in income tax, but to raise the overall tax burden on the middle class. So to claim that they were all on "corporations and foundations" isn't exactly true."

Read again... INCOME taxes were lowered. Payroll taxes went up due to the adjustment to SS taxes. Which had to be done, because when SS was first started it was not set up to be adjusted for inflation.
 
Bahhaha lofl
so now were trying to say that a gas tax (turbo-libs best friend) and an increase in SS tax is really an offset to lowering income taxes form 70% to 33%.
Damm!!! that some funny shit:clink:
 
Superfreak said:
"And I posted from the CBO, that payroll taxes increased enough under Reagan, to not only offset the decrease in income tax, but to raise the overall tax burden on the middle class. So to claim that they were all on "corporations and foundations" isn't exactly true."

Read again... INCOME taxes were lowered. Payroll taxes went up due to the adjustment to SS taxes. Which had to be done, because when SS was first started it was not set up to be adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it had to be done, I'm sure it did. It kept ss solvent.

The fact remains, that the theory of tax cuts being good for the economy is that when the middle class gets them they will consume more. Right? So if they are paying higher taxes, then they have less money to spend, period. So you can't raise payroll taxes on the middle class, and then cut income taxes by a lesser amount, leaving them less money to spend, and still claim that tax cuts stimuliated the economy.
 
Superfreak said:
"consumption tax ? Whatever, a tax is a tax."

Then you have no comprehension on how different taxes affect the economy.
Click to expand...

Explain how payroll taxes affect the economy differently than income taxes, within the middle class.

I guess I'm stupid too, because I don't know either.
 
I don't care if it had to be done, I'm sure it did. It kept ss solvent.
//

It did ? for how long, authorizing the raiding of the surplus just increased the problem. Just wait a few years you will see. It will be very painful.
 
Topspin said:
Bahhaha lofl
so now were trying to say that a gas tax (turbo-libs best friend) and an increase in SS tax is really an offset to lowering income taxes form 70% to 33%.
Damm!!! that some funny shit:clink:
Click to expand...

Top why don't you let us know when you can actually follow the thread, and have something to add?

I'll tune back in then. Thanks.
 
Superfreak said:
"And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday. "

And I addressed those increases... they were not increases on income taxes. They were increases on corporations, foundations. The SS "tax increase" simply adjusted the numbers to current dollars by adjusting for inflation. The gas tax was a consumption tax.
Click to expand...


But, you guys have been trumpeting what a great tax cutter reagan was for years. Admit it: until I informed you yesterday, you had no idea reagan was a massive tax hiker. ;)

Of course a republican, who causes massive deficits, is not going to make wealthy individuals pay for the excess. That's why reagan never tried to go back and readjust the cuts in the top mariginal rates.

He placed the burden of fixing the sea of red ink he caused, on the backs of the middle class, and small business. A consumption tax, or a gas tax is overwhelmingly paid by working americans. Reducing the amount of deductions a business can take, is going to hurt mom and pop businesses more than corporations. Corporations have fancy accountants, and offshore tax shelters.
 
Superfreak said:
"consumption tax ? Whatever, a tax is a tax."

Then you have no comprehension on how different taxes affect the economy.
Click to expand...

A tax is a tax.

Now if we are talking about progressive taxes to help reduce consumption of an item. Like my sewer / water rates going up after a certain com=nsumption point is passed. but a general tax on gasoline is just a tax on everyone, large and small consumers.
 
uscitizen said:
I don't care if it had to be done, I'm sure it did. It kept ss solvent.
//

It did ? for how long, authorizing the raiding of the surplus just increased the problem. Just wait a few years you will see. It will be very painful.
Click to expand...

I meant that he raised SS taxes. It didn't solve the SS problem for good, but it kept it solvent for the time. I didn't mean using the SS surplus, which I don't think any of them should have been doing, but it's my understanding that they all have since then. I could be wrong about that.
 
uscitizen said:
A tax is a tax.

Now if we are talking about progressive taxes to help reduce consumption of an item. Like my sewer / water rates going up after a certain com=nsumption point is passed. but a general tax on gasoline is just a tax on everyone, large and small consumers.
Click to expand...



A tax is a tax.


No, you don't get it USC. Use republican logic: If Reagan increases gasoline taxes, and eliminated tax deductions to increase revenue, those aren't really "tax" increases.


If Nancy Pelois increased gasoline taxes, or eliminated tax deductions to increase revenues, those WOULD be tax increases.


See how that works? ;)
 
Darla... I have never said that tax cuts are the be all end all. There are many factors that affect the change. Because if you lower taxes too much, then it can have a negative effect. Lowering taxes from 70% to 35% had a positive effect on the economy. But lowering them from 35% to 10% would likely have a negative effect. You want the government to do what it can do more efficiently and you want them out of what they suck doing. They they should provide the military, court systems, police, firefighters, postal service etc... because they are not profitable or efficient if run privately. But at the same time, you don't want the government taking 70% of the money from those that would otherwise invest in the markets, venture capital, new businesses etc.... because it is the private sector that should be creating the new jobs. (predominantly... not entirely)

The tax cuts are also not just about the middle class consumption rates. If you lower the taxes on the top, that creates more jobs. More jobs means you tend to have more competition to hire employees, which tends to give wage power to the employees. Which it did.

All that said, it is the drive of the American work force that led to the boom. The politicians certainly can help/hinder the drive and the degree of success, but they are given far too much credit/blame for economic cycles.
 
Darla said:
I meant that he raised SS taxes. It didn't solve the SS problem for good, but it kept it solvent for the time. I didn't mean using the SS surplus, which I don't think any of them should have been doing, but it's my understanding that they all have since then. I could be wrong about that.
Click to expand...

yeah all are guilty congress, etc. but I believe it happened under Reagans watch, he signed on for it, and he was the first to use the surplus to offset defecit spending. unless I have my facts wrong.
 
Duhla, you can't ever reach the level of being able to really debate the Reagan boom. All you have is tired old schoold turbo-lib talking points.
I'm on your and Cypress's side. The sad thing is your type of thinking is risking the 08 election by being clueless about wealth creation and it's affect on the middle class.
 
"Explain how payroll taxes affect the economy differently than income taxes, within the middle class.

I guess I'm stupid too, because I don't know either."

I did not say that Darla... I said CONSUMPTION tax vs. Income tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top