Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President Ronald Reagan cut taxes hugely in 1981, and again a few years later.
What was the result?
I made this graph from data in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the U.S. Government, now in public domain. It shows the percentage change in household income, for five quintiles of population income: Bottom 20%, next-to-lowest 20%, middle 20%, next to highest 20%, and highest 20%. It is adjusted for inflation. (if it hadn't been, the increases in income would have been numerically even higher.)
ALL groups saw large increases in their incomes once Regan's tax cuts began to take effect.
I've noticed that the usual liberals have already begun their usual screaming about Reagan's tax cuts "only benefitting the rich". They are apparently casting about for something to use to bash Donald Trump's proposed major tax cuts. The fact that their screams aren't even true, doesn't seem to matter to them.
Documented evidence indicates otherwise. A not unusual status for liberals' claims.
The National Debt Tripled under Reagan and the following President was a one term wonder because "It's the Economy Stupid" haunted Bush Sr. due to Reagans spending and tax cuts for the rich.
So, yes one can stimulate the economy, in the short run, then you run into the long term downsides and what Repubs want to repeat and then hope for different results. Or do they not care and are willing to stick it to us all long term while they make heir short term profits, hmmmmm.
The National Debt Tripled under Reagan and the following President was a one term wonder because "It's the Economy Stupid" haunted Bush Sr. due to Reagans spending and tax cuts for the rich.
So, yes one can stimulate the economy, in the short run, then you run into the long term downsides and what Repubs want to repeat and then hope for different results. Or do they not care and are willing to stick it to us all long term while they make heir short term profits, hmmmmm.
National debt doubled under Obama, but you dont care..
The National Debt Tripled under Reagan and the following President was a one term wonder because "It's the Economy Stupid" haunted Bush Sr. due to Reagans spending and tax cuts for the rich.
So, yes one can stimulate the economy, in the short run, then you run into the long term downsides and what Repubs want to repeat and then hope for different results. Or do they not care and are willing to stick it to us all long term while they make heir short term profits, hmmmmm.
I love the “tripled†remark because in 8 years Reagan added less than $2 Trillion to the debt.
Reagan's tax cuts tripled the national debt, slowed the rate of job growth, and transferred a great deal of wealth to the already wealthy.
To make up for lost revenue from his original tax cut, Reagan increased taxes numerous times -- the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the Tax Reform of 1986, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, ... These tax increases shielded the wealthy, and hit middle income Americans. Deductions, such as interests on student loans, disappeared which had a significant financial impact on middle America.
Lot fewer jobs created under Reagan than under either Clinton or Carter.
Under Clinton, gain of 2.9 million jobs created per year in office.
Under Carter, gain of 2.6 million jobs created per year in office.
Under Reagan, gain of 2 million jobs created per year in office.
Reagan's economy was helped along by sharp cuts in interest rates by the Fed and large increase in federal spending for defense.
However it isn't all bad news The income share of the top 1 percent, jumped from 8.3 percent to 14.2 percent—a gain of 71 percent.
Essentially, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, middle-income Americans took a hit, while the National Debt tripled.
Look it up. That's exactly what happened.
Reagan created the Big Lie -- that we can cut taxes to the absolute minimum while running a huge government in an increasingly technological sophisticated and complex world.
Reagan left so much structural debt to the first Bush that even with more tax increases, the National Debt went up 50%
The truth is that when we withdraw income from society and place it into the bank accounts of the rich where it stays out of circulation, it dries up the economic wealth of a nation.
I've been hearing for years that trickle down economics didn't work. I've also seen graphs and threads on here that show that wages have been stagnant and flat for decades ever since. I don't know enough about the particulars to really say, but it would seem that the rich have gotten exponential richer while the rest flat lined. This has been beaten to death, again, not sure what is real and what is spin.
Walmart doesn't hire more cashiers, or open new stores when the Waltons get a big tax cut.
Walmart hires more cashiers when people buy more stuff. Walmart opens more stores in areas they think they can make money.
Money doesn't trickle down. It trickles up.
"Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands." Will Rogers
Yep. Reagan wanted to do four things durig his Presidency: (1) Cut taxes, (2) balance the budget, (3) defeat the Soviet Union, and (4) rebuild the military from its post-Carter doldrums. But the Democrats in Congress reneged on their promises to cut spending, hugely increased the "social" spending, and told Reagan to sign it or else lose his military buildup. Reagan caved and signed, and the deficit exploded as you said. Reagan achieved three of his four goals.
Quote:
and the following President was a one term wonder because "It's the Economy Stupid" haunted Bush Sr.
Nice try. But Bush 41 lost re-election because he promised "Read my lips, no new taxes", and then let Democrats railroad him into signing some new taxes. He also signed several "gun control" laws that only affected the law-abiding, and the voters kicked him out.
Quote:
due to Reagans spending
You mean, the Democrats' spending and coercive tactics.
Quote:
and tax cuts for the rich.
Hilarious. Faced with documented evidence that Reagan's tax cuts helped rich and poor alike, this liberal is trying to pretend he hasn't read it, and keep lying about "taxes for the rich" anyway.
No wonder nobody listens to them any more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
