PDA

View Full Version : Is Thom Hartmann Serious? "Rich tax rate went from 74% to 29% under Reagan."




Knightskye
03-31-2009, 10:32 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/the-real-criminals-are-ne_b_177996.html


Ever since Ronald Reagan rolled back the top marginal income tax rate on millionaires and billionaires from 74 percent to 29 percent, our government has been disastrously in debt, sliding deeper each and every year

Were millionaires ("and billionaires") really paying almost 3/4 of their income to the government?

Also, is Hartmann claiming that because the "rich" were paying less in taxes, the government went into debt?

Could've sworn it was because of reckless spending.

If you do read the article, don't be surprised that Hartmann doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve and its creation and inflation of bubbles.

AuH2O
03-31-2009, 10:54 PM
The top marginal tax rate when Reagan took office was around 70%, and was below 40% when he left office, if I remember correctly.

RevolutionSD
03-31-2009, 11:19 PM
Almost nobody was actually paying 70%.

Thom Hartmann is being dishonest here, as much as I also don't like Reagan, bringing down taxes is NEVER bad for economies, and Reagan raised so many other taxes that this is a wash.

Knightskye
03-31-2009, 11:48 PM
The top marginal tax rate when Reagan took office was around 70%, and was below 40% when he left office, if I remember correctly.

Oh...

I thought people would revolt if they were paying taxes that high.

idiom
04-01-2009, 01:02 AM
Rule of thumb for governments, if they don't revolt at 3%, they won't revolt.

StilesBC
04-01-2009, 08:47 AM
Roosevelt had the top tax rate at around 90% IIRC.

KenInMontiMN
04-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Any good tax man would insure that historical high percentage was at least halved, the system was rife with loopholes and deduction opportunities.

But as far as the tax cuts are always good for economies theorem, its true only with sound currency forcing minimal deficit spending. With a fiat currency and the separation between a banking cartel & gov't enabling and diffusing responsibility for massive deficit spending, tax cuts are a horrible economic idea without first cutting gov't expense to match. Simply put- pay the debt off, and kill off the spending. Then talk about cutting off the revenue stream. Otherwise you're endorsing borrow & spend, since that will be the result.

RCA
04-01-2009, 10:12 AM
Rule of thumb for governments, if they don't revolt at 3%, they won't revolt.

source?

paulitics
04-01-2009, 10:29 AM
Reagan significantly raised fica taxes, an extremely regressive tax. Married couples felt the pinch so much that this further lead to the necessity of two incomes per household. The media and classrooms only talk about Income tax, which for most Americans remain the same no matter what. It's a diversion. It's all of the other FLAT TAXES that are the most burdensome. Unless you are a CEO, fica taxes are likely higher than your income taxes. Also, marginal tax rates on income taxes does not mean overall rate. You can pay 33% on the top tier income tax, and still be paying about 15% - 20% effective tax rate.

angelatc
04-01-2009, 10:48 AM
The ultra rich don't pay much in income tax - they pay capital gains taxes.

FICA taxes cap at a lot less than a CEO salary.

FICA CAP for 2000 was $76,200.00
FICA CAP for 2001 was $80,400.00
FICA CAP for 2002 was $84,900.00
FICA CAP for 2003 was $87,000.00
FICA CAP for 2004 was $87,900.00
FICA CAP for 2005 was $90,000.00
FICA CAP for 2006 was $94,200.00
FICA CAP for 2007 was $97,500.00
FICA CAP for 2008 was $102,000.00

Mani
04-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I thought he dropped income tax from 60% to 40%.

I remember being a kid in the 80's and some people talked about how they worked only part of the year in order to avoid hitting the 60% rate, because they actually took home LESS income by working MORE. They had to shut down productivity in order to keep more of their earnings.

The super rich have always had the off shore accounts and loop holes and stuff, but it affected the upper middle class.

fletcher
04-01-2009, 12:02 PM
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/fletcher115/taxrates.jpg

Danke
04-01-2009, 12:20 PM
FICA taxes cap at a lot less than a CEO salary.

FICA CAP for 2000 was $76,200.00
FICA CAP for 2001 was $80,400.00
FICA CAP for 2002 was $84,900.00
FICA CAP for 2003 was $87,000.00
FICA CAP for 2004 was $87,900.00
FICA CAP for 2005 was $90,000.00
FICA CAP for 2006 was $94,200.00
FICA CAP for 2007 was $97,500.00
FICA CAP for 2008 was $102,000.00


Not true.

There is no cap for the Medicare portion. 2.9% (we only see the 1.45% half from our paychecks).

daviddee
04-01-2009, 02:19 PM
...

Anti Federalist
04-01-2009, 03:15 PM
I thought he dropped income tax from 60% to 40%.

I remember being a kid in the 80's and some people talked about how they worked only part of the year in order to avoid hitting the 60% rate, because they actually took home LESS income by working MORE. They had to shut down productivity in order to keep more of their earnings.

The super rich have always had the off shore accounts and loop holes and stuff, but it affected the upper middle class.

This is also due to the criminal pratice of "income withholding".

An hourly worker gets a progressively larger tax bite taken out, as the hourly rate increases due to overtime, holiday pay or what have you.

The system witholds income as if that (temporary) hourly income increase would sustain for every hour worked after that for the rest of the year, effectively confiscating your money until filing for a refund.

Income withholding and the progressive nature of it are throwbacks to (temporary - yeah right) wage and price controls during WWII.

A tax revolt will only happen until income witholding is done away with.

Let Boobus have to cut a check to Uncle Sucker for a couple of grand every quarter, and see what happens next.

Knightskye
04-01-2009, 08:41 PM
Taxes aren't that bad, look at the Laffer curve.
http://lvb.net/media/1/20050717-laffer-curve.gif

Laffer, as in the guy who wagered a penny that Peter Schiff would be wrong about the mortgage market. ;)

paulitics
04-01-2009, 09:41 PM
Taxes aren't that bad, look at the Laffer curve.
http://lvb.net/media/1/20050717-laffer-curve.gif

Laffer is a moron, but he got this right. This is the real reason the income tax isn't 90%.

paulitics
04-01-2009, 09:52 PM
A tax revolt will only happen until income witholding is done away with.

.

Your mind thinks just like mine. You also probably realize that the primary reason we have a 15.4 flat fica tax, where half of it is paid for by the employer (not just witheld, but actually concealed)is for the exact same reason.

It is also the reason why the carbon tax will be a backdoor tax.

Anti Federalist
04-01-2009, 09:59 PM
Your mind thinks just like mine. You also probably realize that the primary reason we have a 15.4 flat fica tax, where half of it is paid for by the employer (not just witheld, but actually concealed)is for the exact same reason.

It is also the reason why the carbon tax will be a backdoor tax.

+1

Yes it does, and yes I do, and yes it will be.;)

The average family of four, making the average yearly income, pays over half of it's income in taxation, much of it "hidden".

Make 'em pay, in full, every month. Then you'll see rebellion.

Which is, of course, why TPTB will never, ever allow that to happen.

idiom
04-02-2009, 01:24 AM
source?

Its a reference to the Tea Act.

As for coining it as a rule of governing, I will put it in a book and you can cite me someday :)

fletcher
04-02-2009, 09:20 AM
Taxes aren't that bad, look at the Laffer curve.
http://lvb.net/media/1/20050717-laffer-curve.gif

Fuck the Laffer curve. Why would you want to maximize the amount of money the government gets? That only leads to more government.