The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


The tax is only valid for those who are liable to it. For most, the only thing that ever made them liable was their own "voluntary" self assessment of liability and a sworn testimony in the form of a "valid tax return". Outside of that sworn admission of liability, I know of no section in the tax code that makes the vast majority of income earners liable for the tax. If that is correct, then the debate on how much people should pay begins with who is liable. If one is not liable then they should not pay anything, wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by peck420


he only lowered taxes his first year
he actually raised taxes 11 times during his presidency
the real damage was done in allowing for outsourcing without significant tax hikes

(i learned that from tv.... dont i feel a fool )

in my defense its incredibly difficult trying to keep up with current events and catch up on things that happened decades before i was born

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by peck420

 

he only lowered taxes his first year
he actually raised taxes 11 times during his presidency
the real damage was done in allowing for outsourcing without significant tax hikes

(i learned that from tv.... dont i feel a fool

)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

And this right here is why we should not be too quick to judge financial measures at first glance.

Most take years, even decades, to manifest their strengths and weakness'.

I believe Reagan himself, on 60 Minutes, stated that he would have done things very differently now that he has seen the outcome.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
My position is that this country did not have a severe budgetary crisis prior to the nearly

reply to post by Kali74


Look closer at the numbers.

104,164,970 Tax Returns were filed.

At the 10% tax rate (income bracket $0-8,350) 103,255,579 returns were filed

At the 33% tax rate ($171,550-372,950) 2,210,902 returns were filed

Those two brackets add up to beyond the total number filed not to mention the other brackets. Also the bracket dollars don't add up to the reported total dollars. Taxes from the top 10% are spread throughout the brackets which will skew your results. There may be other factors to consider when evaluating this data also.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

Don't cherry pick.

When Reagan took office (from Carter):

GDP growth: -3.2%
Inflation: 11.8%
Unemployment: 7.5%

When Reagan left office:

GDP Growth: 4.1%
Inflation: 4.8%
Unemployment: 5.5%

If the only figure you use for evaluating an economy is debt, then, I dare say, you really should not be discussing economics.

Reagan inherited an economy on the brink of massive decline due to stagnation. He employed policies to restart growth with the intent of paying down the incurred debt later.

Was his solution perfect? No.

Was it far better than the status quo? Absolutely.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


Sure you're not mixing apples with horse# here? All I've ever known about the effect of Reagan's tax cuts is other's opinions. Sure spending went way up but to say revenue didn't increase appears to be incorrect.

JEC Report

During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.

Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

Just a thought.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Hmm lol well I'm glad they make it so easy to figure this stuff out. They should put forth some formulas along with the data or at least make it clear what's going where. All the same if the data is wrong or unclear at the source I'm not sure how any claims can be made period.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by jacklondonmiller

 

Don't cherry pick.

When Reagan took office (from Carter):

GDP growth: -3.2%
Inflation: 11.8%
Unemployment: 7.5%

When Reagan left office:

GDP Growth: 4.1%
Inflation: 4.8%
Unemployment: 5.5%

If the only figure you use for evaluating an economy is debt, then, I dare say, you really should not be discussing economics.

Reagan inherited an economy on the brink of massive decline due to stagnation. He employed policies to restart growth with the intent of paying down the incurred debt later.

Was his solution perfect? No.

Was it far better than the status quo? Absolutely.

You are telling me that it was better to put the country firmly on the road to

bankruptcy? The ironic thing about Reagan's record is that he utilized

Keynesian policies on steroids, which is exactly what Right Wingers claim

to hate.

In the end over 6 trillion of the debt I HAVE TO HELP PAY OFF was due to

his policies.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
You are telling me that it was better to put the country firmly on the road to bankruptcy? The ironic thing about Reagan's record is that he utilized Keynesian policies on steroids, which is exactly what Right Wingers claim to hate. In the end over 6 trillion of the debt I HAVE TO HELP PAY OFF was due to his policies.

If the choice is debt now with the chance to pay it off later or an economic collapse, you don't really have an option.

That is what Reagan was faced with. I think he did an amazing job with what he was given. The biggest flaw in Reagan's economic strategy, is that it was not followed through on by the following administrations. Instead of paying off the initial debts, most continued to abuse his 'trick' to continually pass the buck on to the next administration.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
You are telling me that it was better to put the country firmly on the road to bankruptcy? The ironic thing about Reagan's record is that he utilized Keynesian policies on steroids, which is exactly what Right Wingers claim to hate. In the end over 6 trillion of the debt I HAVE TO HELP PAY OFF was due to his policies.

If the choice is debt now with the chance to pay it off later or an economic collapse, you don't really have an option.

That is what Reagan was faced with. I think he did an amazing job with what he was given. The biggest flaw in Reagan's economic strategy, is that it was not followed through on by the following administrations. Instead of paying off the initial debts, most continued to abuse his 'trick' to continually pass the buck on to the next administration.

Are you being serious?

190% increase in debt liabilities every year for 30 years would consume the

GDP before fiscal year even started.

For Christs sake Obama has only hit 45%, is there reason why you ignoring

the vast and gross negligence 189% represents?

Reagan actually, as you put it, created the abuse and trick you are referring to.

"continued to abuse his 'trick' to continually pass the buck on to the next administration."

Yes he did, you put it very well...

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


yeah but it really does matter what amount was there in the first place

hey let me borrow a dollar eighty nine
i already owe my other friend a dollar
i just increased my debt by 189%
however i only borrowed $1.89
i do agree that is extremely irresponsible but i dont think there was a whole lot of choice (which is an entirely different problem)
payments on the debt should have been made as soon as revenue streams returned (which was while he was still in office)
and i really do blame him for it so im with you there
but the logic is flawed without knowing the exact ammount it increased (and in relation to the gdp)

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Are you being serious?

190% increase in debt liabilities every year for 30 years would consume the GDP before fiscal year even started.

For Christs sake Obama has only hit 45%, is there reason why you ignoring the vast and gross negligence 189% represents?

Ignoring is vastly different than understanding.

I am ignoring the 190% (and the 45%) because they are meaningless numbers. You would need to understand that debt is only a good analysis tool when you have something to compare it to. For example, if you have $10 debt and you increase that to $30 dollars debt, you have increased by 200%...which sounds terrible. If you have an income of $500, it is, all of a sudden, not very terrible at all. That is why debt needs to be compared to something. I will use the economic standard of debt to GDP.

Reagan debt to GDP at start: 32%
Reagan debt to GDP at end: 52%
Total debt growth: 20% of GDP

Both are well within what was (and still is) considered manageable.

Obama debt to GDP at start: 85%
Current debt to GDP: 106%
Total debt growth: 21% of GDP

Both are easily considered excessive. I readily admit that this is not an 'Obama problem', as he inherited and excessive debt load with massive deficits.

The thing you fail to mention (I am starting to wonder why?) is that although Reagan increased debt, he increased GDP as well...at a significantly better pace than at current, which is why his debt increase of 190% relates to a smaller difference than Obama's debt increase of 45% on a debt to GDP scale.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation


NO NO NO!!!! Top 10% make 113,000 and UP UP UP! Not between 113,000 and 159,000 as you stated. On the OP I agree with you but that statement is not true and you ignored the point about this issue being settled yesterday by Schuyler.

Alright, I hereby correct my statement to "The top 10% make 113000 and up".

As for schuylers post: I didnt get to read all posts, there are too many of them.

reply to post by Kali74


Regarding the calculations you are posting or linking to: Could you simplify a little and tell us the percentage you think the top 10% earners are paying, in one short sentence? If its not 70%, what then?

With the enormous amount of posts some simplification would be appreciated.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I know it may seem picky and it was one of the first things I read this morning. My point about Schuyler's post was that it was THE piece of evidence to settle the basic premise of the OP but was overlooked by everyone. Also that Illuminati pyramid of debate rules should be enforced a little more except for maybe allowing use of the term "tin foil ass hat". Maybe?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Just read it. How could I have missed it?

For all thread readers: Schuylers Post

reply to post by Skyfloating


It seems the numbers are off somewhere and there's something in the mix I don't understand at all but...using the same data as used for the chart i came up with the top 10% paid 45% of federal taxes in 2006. But the IRS' numbers don't add up in places or add up to more than their own totals (at least as far as returns filed, not sure of others) I'm done with the math, I hate math. I think the 71% claim is way off but I haven't been able to prove it.

Anyway most of this thread turned into liberal bashing so, I'm out.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Are you being serious?

190% increase in debt liabilities every year for 30 years would consume the GDP before fiscal year even started.

For Christs sake Obama has only hit 45%, is there reason why you ignoring the vast and gross negligence 189% represents?

Ignoring is vastly different than understanding.

I am ignoring the 190% (and the 45%) because they are meaningless numbers. You would need to understand that debt is only a good analysis tool when you have something to compare it to. For example, if you have $10 debt and you increase that to $30 dollars debt, you have increased by 200%...which sounds terrible. If you have an income of $500, it is, all of a sudden, not very terrible at all. That is why debt needs to be compared to something. I will use the economic standard of debt to GDP.

Reagan debt to GDP at start: 32%
Reagan debt to GDP at end: 52%
Total debt growth: 20% of GDP

Both are well within what was (and still is) considered manageable.

Obama debt to GDP at start: 85%
Current debt to GDP: 106%
Total debt growth: 21% of GDP

Both are easily considered excessive. I readily admit that this is not an 'Obama problem', as he inherited and excessive debt load with massive deficits.

The thing you fail to mention (I am starting to wonder why?) is that although Reagan increased debt, he increased GDP as well...at a significantly better pace than at current, which is why his debt increase of 190% relates to a smaller difference than Obama's debt increase of 45% on a debt to GDP scale.

I am not arguing that the GDP didn't rise, it did, it is called Keynesian economics

when the government spends to stimulate economic growth in the private sector.

I take issue with the amount Ronald Reagan increased spending, getting 32% on a test

in 1962 does not mean that the score is invalid just because it is 2012. Reagan broke

all the molds and implemented the current debt model that America is a slave to.

I can make $50,000 get a cash advance for $50,000 and look like I have earned $100,000,

this is exactly what you are trying to get me to agree with.

On a side note, every single person on this thread that I have talked to has acted in bad faith.

When I was young people did not readily commit to such half truths, even if it made your

argument look soft because there was admiration for the truth. Some of you make Lawyers

look tame, so maybe you guys should think about becoming politicians.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


Then you never should have said this

It was irresponsible to cut rates so dramatically and apparently

be completely mathematically challenged.