Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
49
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

49 Views
Message 1 of 40

@Olderscout66 wrote:


True, and in exchange for being able to get a better deal (bigger refund) using the "short form", the Middle Class will pay MORE TAXES because the standard deduction has gone up a lot slower than the Republicans have pushed the "value" of deductions DOWN.


What does all that have to do with the question Rker asked?   A person would need to have a larger amount of deductions to exceed the standard deduction without deductible items.  Why the need to bring up Reagan, GOPer Lords, etc every time.  Just to give a non-answer to a simple question.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
49
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
54
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

54 Views
Message 2 of 40

@rker321 wrote:

So  what is the answer to the 2018 taxes and the fact that no medical deduction under 26,000 would be allowed?


Might be because that is the standard deduction without itemizing.  I've been calculating my return while waiting on W-2's.  I find that there is a $24,000 standard deduction for married filing jointly, plus an additional $2,600 when both are over 65 ($1,300 per person).  It wouldn't make sense to deduct medical expenses unless other itemized items would push the total higher.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
54
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
57
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

57 Views
Message 3 of 40

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 


You are offering theories and opinions. Look here for actual collections by the Treasury year by year.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/


Dollar amounts are meaningless UNLESS you adjust for inflation and population growth, in which case collections were significantly LESS than they would've been under the pre-Reagan brackets. IF so much more was collected, why did Reagan TRIPLE the National Debt? If it was a tax cut, why did the EFFECTIVE rate for the middle class increase by 48% while that for the top 1% dropped by 47%?

Final question: If Reagan's taxscam really brought PROSPERITY, why are we seeing every measure of "well being" DROP LIKE A ROCK since 1981 - standard of living, availability of higher education, quality of health care, condition of infrastructure, education of our kids, scientific breakthroughs - ALL have lost ground to the rest of the World since the taxscam as has the real income and ability to save of the bottom 99%.


If you think that my figures on increased intake by the Treasury are inaccurate, please provide what you think are accurate figures - not just theories and op/eds.


The numbers in and of themselves tell you NOTHING about the events that caused them. The APPARENT increase in revenue was caused by inflation, population growth and the HUGE increase in taxes on the Middle Class. that last part is essential in evaluating the results - If the top 1% suddenly wound up paying HALF of what they'd paid the year before, and the total collected INCREASED, where did the increase come from? It sure wasn't caused because WORKERS income skyrocketed and real GDP decreased 1.8% from 1981 to 1982.

The NUMERIC increase in tax revenue was because REAGAN INCREASED COLLECTIONS FROM THE BOTTOM 99%, not because of any actual increase in the economy.


The rich never paid HALF of what they paid the year before. Stick to reality not your wild theories.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
57
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
62
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

62 Views
Message 4 of 40

OLDERSCOUT WROTE-The NUMERIC increase in tax revenue was because REAGAN INCREASED COLLECTIONS FROM THE BOTTOM 99%, not because of any actual increase in the economy.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPORTERS  of President Barack Obama, such as one of his campaign donors Robert Deitrick, an Ohio financial advisor often quoted in Forbes and elsewhere, insist that the Obama economy has been much more robust than Ronald Reagan's. Are they right?

Let's look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan's net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million JOBS-----Do you suppose the 16.1million new jobs might have had  the outstanding effect on the economy?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
62
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
67
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

67 Views
Message 5 of 40

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 


You are offering theories and opinions. Look here for actual collections by the Treasury year by year.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/


Dollar amounts are meaningless UNLESS you adjust for inflation and population growth, in which case collections were significantly LESS than they would've been under the pre-Reagan brackets. IF so much more was collected, why did Reagan TRIPLE the National Debt? If it was a tax cut, why did the EFFECTIVE rate for the middle class increase by 48% while that for the top 1% dropped by 47%?

Final question: If Reagan's taxscam really brought PROSPERITY, why are we seeing every measure of "well being" DROP LIKE A ROCK since 1981 - standard of living, availability of higher education, quality of health care, condition of infrastructure, education of our kids, scientific breakthroughs - ALL have lost ground to the rest of the World since the taxscam as has the real income and ability to save of the bottom 99%.


If you think that my figures on increased intake by the Treasury are inaccurate, please provide what you think are accurate figures - not just theories and op/eds.


The numbers in and of themselves tell you NOTHING about the events that caused them. The APPARENT increase in revenue was caused by inflation, population growth and the HUGE increase in taxes on the Middle Class. that last part is essential in evaluating the results - If the top 1% suddenly wound up paying HALF of what they'd paid the year before, and the total collected INCREASED, where did the increase come from? It sure wasn't caused because WORKERS income skyrocketed and real GDP decreased 1.8% from 1981 to 1982.

The NUMERIC increase in tax revenue was because REAGAN INCREASED COLLECTIONS FROM THE BOTTOM 99%, not because of any actual increase in the economy.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
67
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
72
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

72 Views
Message 6 of 40

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 


You are offering theories and opinions. Look here for actual collections by the Treasury year by year.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/


Dollar amounts are meaningless UNLESS you adjust for inflation and population growth, in which case collections were significantly LESS than they would've been under the pre-Reagan brackets. IF so much more was collected, why did Reagan TRIPLE the National Debt? If it was a tax cut, why did the EFFECTIVE rate for the middle class increase by 48% while that for the top 1% dropped by 47%?

Final question: If Reagan's taxscam really brought PROSPERITY, why are we seeing every measure of "well being" DROP LIKE A ROCK since 1981 - standard of living, availability of higher education, quality of health care, condition of infrastructure, education of our kids, scientific breakthroughs - ALL have lost ground to the rest of the World since the taxscam as has the real income and ability to save of the bottom 99%.


If you think that my figures on increased intake by the Treasury are inaccurate, please provide what you think are accurate figures - not just theories and op/eds.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
72
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
86
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

86 Views
Message 7 of 40

@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 


You are offering theories and opinions. Look here for actual collections by the Treasury year by year.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/


Dollar amounts are meaningless UNLESS you adjust for inflation and population growth, in which case collections were significantly LESS than they would've been under the pre-Reagan brackets. IF so much more was collected, why did Reagan TRIPLE the National Debt? If it was a tax cut, why did the EFFECTIVE rate for the middle class increase by 48% while that for the top 1% dropped by 47%?

Final question: If Reagan's taxscam really brought PROSPERITY, why are we seeing every measure of "well being" DROP LIKE A ROCK since 1981 - standard of living, availability of higher education, quality of health care, condition of infrastructure, education of our kids, scientific breakthroughs - ALL have lost ground to the rest of the World since the taxscam as has the real income and ability to save of the bottom 99%.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
86
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
96
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

96 Views
Message 8 of 40

@Panjandrum wrote:

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 


You are offering theories and opinions. Look here for actual collections by the Treasury year by year.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
96
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
103
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

103 Views
Message 9 of 40

@Panjandrum wrote:

easyed598:  Olderscout failed to mention that reagan tax cuts brought in more revenue than before his tax cuts by providing more spendible income to individuals and allowing corporations to expand  and also creating millions of more jobs for people who paid taxes. However ,the greedy Congress, manage to spend every extra dollar on their pet projects.

 

 

Why do you fail to mention that Reagan's tax plan cut revenue so drastically he subsequently raised taxes 11 times to make up the shortfall? Look at the actual data from that era Ed, you're buying in to a fairytale.


You might want to address that question to scout who thinks all the world's problems were the result of Reagan tax cuts. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
103
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
115
Views

Re: What would happen with 1965-80 tax brackets?

115 Views
Message 10 of 40

rk9152:  Wrong again. After the tax cuts took effect, collections by the Treasury increased but spending increased even more.

 

You're basing that on revisionist history. That isn't what happened.

 

 

 

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

 

History lesson: Do big tax cuts pay for themselves?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/07/history-lesson-do-big-tax-cuts-pay-fo...

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
115
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet

Top Authors