Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The 'Real' Tax Rates on Top Earners 

By: Zimbler0 in FFFT | Recommend this post (1)
Wed, 12 Feb 14 5:32 AM | 69 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought 		Msg. 61059 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 61033 by joe-taylor)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

This next article is from Money.CNN.

Very interesting stuff in it. Among other things,
it claims Reagan also presided over a HUGE tax
increase - to make up for 'lost revenue'.
. . .

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/

..
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)
>>>


Zim:
I skipped most of the article. The paragraph I cited
points out the bias of CNN . . . obamba's deficit
of 9% of GDP is expected to drop . . . It won't. CNN
is dreaming and wishing.

The deficit will not drop unless A.) congress slashes
spending or B.) the economy dramatically improves.

I don't see congress slashing spending and the economy
will not improve with obamba's policies.

Grin and Bear it.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: The 'Real' Tax Rates on Top Earners
By: joe-taylor in FFFT
Tue, 11 Feb 14 4:28 PM 		Msg. 61033 of 65535

I really do believe that you think that we are really stupid and naive here!

Just to point out: When Ronald Reagan was president his tax cuts rang up between three and four trillion dollars of deficit. When George W. Bush was president, his tax cuts rang up over six trillion dollars more of additional deficits.

These things occurred because less tax revenue was coming in, thus negating your rather stupid thesis that we were paying the same effective tax rate in the fifties as we are paying now! In the fifties we were balancing the budget!

And, by the way, it is also interesting to note that you are pushing this lie about similar tax rates in the fifties and now because it fits into your ideas about starving the government by running deficits thus giving you the ammunition to destroy the social safety nets that have been in place since the 1930's and the 1960's. And, by the way, we all happen to know who the WSJ is owned by and the agenda that they promote.


Joe


« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next