Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

The Second World War ended in 1945. By the end of that year the U.S. national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%.

President Carter’s last year in office was 1980. When he left office, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had declined to 32%. It had declined every year since 1946. Declines continued during the Korean War and the War in Vietnam. During this time the top marginal tax rate was at least 70%, and often much higher.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In his 1983 debate with President Carter Ronald Reagan claimed that he could cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983 “if not sooner” without cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Instead, by 1983 the national debt had increased from $259 billion in 1980 to $1,377 billion in 1983. This represented an increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP from 32% to 37%.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

Reagan’s last year in office was 1988. By then the national debt had grown to $2,602 billion. This represented an increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP to 50%.

During Reagan’s eight years in office the top marginal tax declined from 70% under President Carter to 28%.

The following chart demonstrates that Reagan's tax cuts for the rich did not benefit most Americans:



During his first year in office, in 1993 President Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.16%. During his eight years in office the national debt as a percentage of GDP declined from 63% to 55%.

President’s George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan each reduced the top marginal tax rate while raising military spending. When Trump left office, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had risen to 129%. After two years of the administration of Joe Biden this declined to 123%.

Now Congressional Republicans are using the increase in the national debt for which they are responsible in an effort to cut domestic spending programs that are popular with the voters. Congressional Republicans threaten to default on the national debt if they do not get their way.

---------

FOX NEWS POLL

Published January 24, 2019 5:55pm EST

Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending

Voters prefer increasing spending on domestic programs over cutting taxes and reducing spending, and their preferred way to finance that spending -- is tax the wealthy.

That’s according to a Fox News Poll released Thursday.

Fifty-one percent of voters want to spend more on programs such as infrastructure, national defense, education, and health care. That includes 63 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans.

At the same time, there is broad support for increasing taxes on the wealthiest families. Voters support tax increases on families making over $10 million annually by a 46-point margin (70 percent favor-24 percent oppose), and support a hike on those making over $1 million by 36 points (65-29 percent).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...xing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending

-------

For years opinion surveys have indicated popular support for a more progressive tax system.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...S4zLjAuMS4yLjMuMZgBAKABAbABCg&sclient=gws-wiz

 

of course most people want others to pay more taxes.

 

Most Americans want the rich to pay more taxes because they are the only people who have benefited from Republican tax cuts for the rich. Most Americans have learned that trickle down economics is a Republican myth.

 

that's silly, the top one percent pay 40% of the income taxes. the poor and lower middle class pay the lowest share of the income tax in decades. you cannot give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes.your attachment is bullshit since it presumes that the government is GIVING the rich money. that is a t typical attitude of the left-they pretend all wealth belongs to the government

 

The premise of the title is fake news. Dems had both Houses of Congress and the Presidency since the revenue neutral Trump tax reform that increased taxes on the rich by capping the SALT deduction and Dems have shrieked about it, a lot.

If Dems really want to raise taxes on the wealthy they would have while they controlled Congress and the Presidency.

Too many Dems love to pretend that they want to raise taxes on the Rich to stoke class warfare much as they stoke racial division, they imagine that they derive political benefit from pitting Americans against each other, but, their pretense at increasing taxes never generate the revenues because the increases are easily evaded.

The Rich Privileged Gentry tend to vote Democrat, so, I demand that you raise their taxes, and that you do so immediately, and I make that demand fully confident that you won't. This is just posturing, and it's wholly unconvincing.

'NO, BUT IT’S JUST A DUMB TALKING POINT': Neither the Constitution Nor Common Sense Supports the Argument the Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional: Professor Prakash dispatches the arguments for unilateral Presidential authority to disregard the debt ceiling.

'If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the only reason there would be a default is if the executive fails to pay the interest on the debt as it comes due. But if the executive branch believes there is a constitutional requirement to pay the interest, why would it even consider refusing to do so? To my knowledge there is no law that prevents the executive from prioritizing interest payments above all other spending.'

If the President directs the Treasury Secretary to default the US by not paying the due interest, she should refuse and resign, and if she does, she should be immediately impeached for violating the 14th amendment.

'In fact, there is an argument that having by statute pledged the “faith of the United States Government,” Congress implicitly prioritized the payment of the interest and principal. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the Treasury should pay the interest as it is due and spend less than Congress appropriated. That would be the best solution in the wake of a mismatch between total inflows (taxes plus new borrowing) and Congress’s desired spending.'

 

More to it than that Let's take any rich person that supplies a commodity for instance! Who in their right mind thinks taking from them will NOT result in increased prices to those purchasing goods! Same goes with any rich person providing any service to the general public, they simply recoup their loss to taxation via increase service charges..

The only way you will EVER gain against the rich is to control HOW MUCH, they, are allowed to sell their products and services for..

Welcome to Socialism

 

Basic question.
Do you prefer to work for someone who has money, or someone who doesn't? Someone who owns a business. or someone who doesn't?

When an average person buys average goods, they support the production chain with average dollars.

When a person with more-than-average money buys goods, they are supporting a more-than-average supply chain, which along the line, likely pays part of the average person's paycheck. Thats part of the 'trickle down'.

 

When the entire tax system is considered, it is only moderately progressive.



----------

Invisible People, JANUARY 7, 2021

Even if you know that the wealth gap in the United States has been growing enormously in the past several decades, with the wealthiest 10% of Americans owning more than 50% of the nation’s household income, it can be difficult to conceptualize what these figures really mean...

“Compensation for CEOs is now 278 times greater than for ordinary workers. That’s a stratospherically larger income gap than the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965,” Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus wrote in a 2019 piece linking “Reaganomics” to present-day income inequality. “Put simply, there is no empirical evidence — none whatsoever — that trickle-down economics delivers as promised, bringing more jobs, higher pay and better conditions to millions of people.”...

As the federal government left the well-being of its citizens up to the private sector, social services – and the potential for public affordable housing development...

In The Nation, Nick Hanauer points out that many homeless people are employed but not making enough money to pay rent. Many people who are renting apartments can barely afford to do so. What’s more, an unexpected cost could put them on the street. This is not a sign of a thriving economy. Instead, it shows that “trickle-down” economic policy will never work.

https://invisiblepeople.tv/the-weal...MI1b_gmdX__gIVVfDjBx2a2wvZEAAYASAAEgKqJ_D_BwE

 

OK, we get it that you don't agree with trickle down economics.

So let's talk about the alternative, trickle up economics. Where does the bottom of the ladder get the funds to make purchases, start businesses and hire people?

 

Rich people do not hire more people when they have more money; they hire more people when they have more customers, even if they have to borrow money to do it. When wealth and income were more evenly distributed, most people had more money to buy stuff.

 

democrats and their allies in the NEA and the media have been telling the masses for years that their failure to succeed is the fault of the rich

I like the meme where a poor man and his son are walking down the street and a man in a Cadillac or Mercedes drives by. 60 years ago, the father would say: son, if you study hard and work hard, one day you can drive a car like that. Now it's -"it's not fair he has a car like that when we have to walk-I wonder who he ripped off to get that ride"

 

it is amusing that leftists complain about too much money being in the hands of those who earn it, but they never complain about that wealth being in the hands of a centralized government

 

The bottom ladder gets the funds from a high minimum wage and strong labor unions.

 

good info. reagan also DOUBLED the fica tax, a very regressive tax that funds social security and medicare and is only collected from the lowest income levels. .


massivedefense spending = keynesian stimulus

 

A strong government is needed to balance the scales of the capitalist market place from the rich and the rest.

 

So a business will wait until they have to tell someone they can't provide goods or services, before they hire people? No market indicators to work from?

 

And where does that 'high MW' come from?

Unions in this day and age are pointless. Other than vacation time, what does a Union provide that is not covered by law?

 

that's dishonest to pretend that the progressively of progressive taxes is diminished by taxes that are not intended to be progressive. You labor under the delusion that people who don't have enough value in the market are somehow that way due to the rich

and while I agree it is idiotic for a board of directors to pay some executives exorbitant amounts, that is a very minor issue that has nothing to do with those who have almost no skills. It's akin to leftwing talking points that a few billionaires pay lower tax rates on like income than the upper middle class. It is a statistical non-entity

 

You're missing the point For starters you could tax the rich 80% and that would never equal the revenue you could generate by taxing the grunts 5% It's just simple math, far more sheep to fleece then there are wolves And even then, the added disposable income would only drive prices thru the roof, or even worse, force the rich to relocate to other parts of the world..

 

when I was younger, my father was CEO of a heavy manufacturing business that had a union. while my father had tough negotiations with the union, he noted they had value because they taught the trade and when there was a problem employee, the union usually did a good job in remedying the situation. He noted that the union workers were generally better than non union That changed over the years. Public sector unions, for example-even FDR opposed. they are nothing more than extra expense on the tax payer. They guarantee nothing and inhibit efficiency.

 

I hope the class warfare specialists force the libertine rich to side with the conservative rich. Right now, yo have lots of leftwing wealthy-mainly for social issues. Abortion rights advocates, gays, etc. If the tax hike parasites push those people into the right wing camp, things will get really interesting. Of course there are some uber wealthy who want an authoritarian collectivist government since they plan on running it. Bloomberg is one who comes to mind

 

So how is it trickle down if a corporation has increased profits but doesn't increase workers pay?

 

The answer to your first question is that a high minimum comes from profits employers do not get.

A strong labor union can always get better wages and benefits for its members than the government can.

 

Money going to profits does not go into pay raises.

 

What you say is largely true.