OT: Then and now

[Ed Pawlowski]

So when do you get to the list of spending cuts?

[Martin H. Eastburn]

Let people absorb the debt like we all did on the legalized by congress after close trades and the real time trading. Then with all of the money printed, inflation dollars will pay them off.

Crazy world when the Demos yell and scream about spending money and then they take control and push power - they do it in aces. What a glutting time it has been spending money they loaned to banks on projects they want. Expanding government for all to hold up for many years.

Mart> Phisherman wrote:

[Martin H. Eastburn]

And what they don't say is the incremental tax - the tax between one Adjusted gross income to anther can be nearly 50%. That 20k bonus you got is down to 11k .

Mart> dadiOH wrote:

[keithw86]

[HeyBub]

The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has, at the request of the White House, taken down the report.

[salty]

The White House pointed out to Reuters that the article was based on a "cough, cough" inaccuracy.

Reuters made the decision to pull the article completely because it could not be corrected.

[Scott Lurndal]

In 1950, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. For those that pine for the 50's and 60's, and wonder how the moon program and the interstate highway system were paid for, that's how.

That rate existed from the depression to the 80's ranging from 70 to 95% (high end during war times).

Is it no wonder that with two wars and bush's tax cuts, we've a record deficit (not to mention a bad recession).

scott

[Scott Lurndal]

we should restore the tax brackets from the 50's - 70's until we're no longer at war.

scott

[HeyBub]

It's not the tax cuts. Every time, every single time, that taxes have been cut, government revenue goes up.

We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to zero, the government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts cure cander and bee bites.

[Luigi Zanasi]

Finally, an honest Tory.

:-)

Luigi

[Mark & Juanita]

You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you? Only those who happened to suddenly come into wealth without a good tax lawyer paid that rate. During those years, the rich had numerous loopholes and tax shelters. Taxing at 90% sounds like a great idea to someone who goes for the class-envy card, but the reality is that no one with a lick of sense is going to expend the time and effort required to make that kind of money only to get 10% of the fruits of their labor.

What the Kennedy tax cuts and later Reagan tax cuts did was make it worthwhile again for people to succeed and not have to hide their money in tax shelters that did little for growing the economy.

[Han]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:zM2dnUje-KyAq_fWnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

:)

[keithw86]

Why stop there? Doesn't everyone want their mortgage paid and a new car?

[HeyBub]

Honest Tory? That's a redundant tautology.

[Zz Yzx]

One of which was discretionary and a HUGE blunder.

Of course, Obama's administration started with a MAJOR recession (damn near a depression), continues to fight the terrorist onslaught, and fight two wars.

I'm just saying, despite the increase during Obama's first year, it's the Republican admistrations that have rung up the first 10 trillion since 1980.

I'm a staunch independant and blame anybody who deserves it.

-Zz

[Swingman]

There is another side to this issue that I experienced personally.

During the late 70's, and until Reagan came into office in the early

80's, the amount of money available for investing in entrepreneurial enterprises - money looking for investments in businesses to take advantage of tax deductions for things like IDC's (intangible drilling costs), depletion allowances, and other business ventures - was amazing plentiful.

Folks in those higher tax brackets would had much rather legitimately invested in an enterprise, that money which would have otherwise gone to taxes if they did not.

The net result of that period of high tax rates, coupled with tax code incentives, was a plentiful supply of money for the entrepreneur and new businesses, some otherwise too risky (like drilling for oil/gas) without the choice of being used to pay taxes, or of investing.

Immediately upon Reagan taking office, that money literally vanished from the table ... I remember around '82, that it was like someone turning off a faucet.

Like I say, I lived this, intimately and to my detriment as a businessman ... AAMOF, were it not for that money drying up, my dreamed of 30 well drilling program in SE Colorado (of which only three "geologic successes, but hydrocarbon failures" were drilled before this money dried up) may well have succeeded in finding another Sorrento Field, making us that much less dependent upon foreign oil, and I would be typing this from the French Riviera instead of waiting for the rain to stop so I can go to the shop to finish a chicken coop (of all things), or not. :)

IOW, it was, prior to Reagan, the HIGHER individual tax rate, and the tax code, not lower taxes, that indeed drove investment in small business.

Just something for the proponents of Reaganomics to consider ... there is ALWAYS unintended consequence to the best of intentions.

[Larry Blanchard]

True. But as I said in an earlier post, corporations still wound up paying more taxes than individuals. And it was mostly the rich who were investors in the stock market back then.

[chaniarts]

then you get sweden. when i lived there my tax rate was 80%. it was a very large disincentive to do any extra work, as the last $ was taxed at the highest rate. overtime was simply not done, by anyone, and you didn't want to stand in the doorway at quiting time.

a friend of mine who was a licensed paramedic in the US was there and tried to volunteer to help the local emt's in their training. he wasn't allowed because the unions didn't allow the concept of volunteers, and they weren't going to pay him.

[Zz Yzx]

Also, I don't know where you got the $1.4 trillion number. Based on this site:

number is more like 4.35 trillion (9-30-2000 through 9-30-2008).

-Zz

[dhall987]

True, but that money only went to the VERY few small business ventures that could take advantage of tax deductions that exceeded cash invested (like oil drilling with depletion allowances that could exceed costs incurred). They were buying losses to take tax deductions that exceeded the losses. A rational approach is to encourage investment in businesses designed to actually make money, not designed to make tax deductions.

A rational taxing system is one where all decisions are made for business purposes, not tax purposes - I do not know of any country with such a rational system, though :-(