Regannomicis

[TCassidy]

Good thing you took that down so fast. It really made you look bad!

 

[Rob_BW]

I don't see how your chart supports your point but I'll look at it in more detail. My quick take is deficits are more important than receipts. These increased during the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations and then went down during the Clinton administration. The table conveniently left off 1997-1999 in which Clinton had surpluses in constant $. Reagan spent the most of any recent President including Obama, measured as annual average % GDP.

Secondly, the top tax rate doesn't tell the whole picture. While Reagan reduced the top tax rate he INCREASED the lowest tax rate. This was the first time in American history this was done. In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax increase on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. In 1984 another bill was introduced that closed tax loopholes. According to tax historian Joseph Thorndike, the bills of 1982 and 1984 "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime"

The bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also cleaned up the tax base by removing certain tax write-offs, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code. Ultimately, the combination of the decrease in deductions and decrease in rates raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue.

Therefore, I'd say that Reagan and GHW Bush initiated the serious problem of deficits. Clinton reduced them and eventually ran a surplus while increasing the top tax rate.

 

[InTheLight]

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[FollowTheWay]

I'm posting the correct version of the data. First of all, Clinton wasn't President in 1992. Remember a guy named GHW Bush (1989-1992)? I'll use the overly simplified argument that you are using. The top tax rate is not the whole story and the deficit/GDP is actually the most important number but you guys can't understand an in-depth analysis so I won't waste my time on it.
I've added the president for each year and the top tax rate in each year. Reagan slightly reduced the top tax rate effective for 1981 and then dropped it to 50% in 1982. he further reduced it to 38.5% in 1987 and 28% in 1988. His receipts didn't really change much from Carter's last year from 1981 to 1985, went up slightly in 1986 and more in 1987 and 1988. GHW Bush's numbers were always higher than Reagan's even though he had to raise the top rate for 1991 and 1992. The really significant comparison is between Reagan and Clinton who started out higher than Reagan or GHW Bush and then went up significantly over his administration ending with receipts about double those during many years of Reagan's term. This was despite (or actually because of) raising the top rate to 39.6%. Once again the really important number is the deficit as a % of GDP. Reagan ran up huge defi9cits tripling the national debt from $1T to $3T in his 8 years. GHW Bush also ran up significant deficits. Following these two disastrous Republication administrations, Clinton started with less of a deficit than Bush and then reduced it every year ending with a surplus his last 3 years.

The obvious takeaway is that Clintonomics was far superior to Reaganomics. If we continue this inton G W Bush's term his application of "trickle down" economics didn't work either and further hurt the American economy.

 

[FollowTheWay]

 

[FollowTheWay]

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Rob_BW]

View attachment 1866

Make a statement/challenge about receipts, then start taling about deficits in the face of evidence. Looked like a pretty classic case of meandering goalposts.

 

[InTheLight]

Reagan's first tax cuts went into effect in January 1982 when the new tax tables came out. This is the government's fiscal year 1982, which ends on September 30, 1982. So when you highlight fiscal years 1981 and 1982 there weren't really any tax cuts taking effect yet. Just nine months worth. That's why I started my chart by highlighting fiscal year 1983, which started Oct 1, 1982.

Also, during 1982 the nation was in the second phase of Carter's double dip recession. Once Reagan's second batch of tax cuts went into effect, the economy really started picking up, we pulled out of the recession, and yes, tax revenue receipts increased. Reagan won the most electoral votes in history when he was reelected in 1984 largely because the tax cuts were working. In fact, GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3%! For the year.

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990.

I know you lived through this era. It was a wonderful era of economic good times. One quarter the GDP grew by over 10%!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We don’t have the same economy as then. The economy has been growing for years. The unemployment rate is extremely low. Babyboomers, such as myself, are either retired or soon heading that way, not looking for full time employment.

Why not.. that’s an opportunity to make more significant money!

 

[FollowTheWay]

Make a statement/challenge about receipts, then start taling about deficits in the face of evidence. Looked like a pretty classic case of meandering goalposts.

Clinton's tax receipts were double those of Reagan's in many years AFTER raising the top tax rate to 39.6%. I knew you guys couldn't understand the real problem. I should have left it at that.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Reagan's first tax cuts went into effect in January 1982 when the new tax tables came out. This is the government's fiscal year 1982, which ends on September 30, 1982. So when you highlight fiscal years 1981 and 1982 there weren't really any tax cuts taking effect yet. Just nine months worth. That's why I started my chart by highlighting fiscal year 1983, which started Oct 1, 1982.

Also, during 1982 the nation was in the second phase of Carter's double dip recession. Once Reagan's second batch of tax cuts went into effect, the economy really started picking up, we pulled out of the recession, and yes, tax revenue receipts increased. Reagan won the most electoral votes in history when he was reelected in 1984 largely because the tax cuts were working. In fact, GDP growth in 1984 was 7.3%! For the year.

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990.

I know you lived through this era. It was a wonderful era of economic good times. One quarter the GDP grew by over 10%!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Clinton's years were far more productive than Reagan's. The proof is in your numbers.

 

[Revmitchell]

Clinton's years were far more productive than Reagan's. The proof is in your numbers.

Reagan policies pulled us out of a Great Recession. Remember the long gas lines of the Carter admin? Reagan had a much harder economy to work through than Clinton. Clinton benefited from the Reagan years. Then he ran us into another recession which Bush inherited.

 

[Rob_BW]

Clinton's tax receipts were double those of Reagan's in many years AFTER raising the top tax rate to 39.6%. I knew you guys couldn't understand the real problem. I should have left it at that.

Is this not your post?

Income was the question. I don't see anything in there about debt.

 

[Rob_BW]

It's been eclipsed in history by the post 9-11 recession, and I don't know if Clinton can be blamed, but that Dot-com Bubble collapse was brutal.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's been eclipsed in history by the post 9-11 recession, and I don't know if Clinton can be blamed, but that Dot-com Bubble collapse was brutal.

We were already headed for a recession before 911

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Prove your point for once. The ball is in your court. Put up or SHUT UP.

He put up. Maybe YOU should shut up ?

 

[InTheLight]

Clinton's years were far more productive than Reagan's. The proof is in your numbers.
Clinton's tax receipts were double those of Reagan's in many years AFTER raising the top tax rate to 39.6%.

I wonder....does the invention of the internet, widespread use of home computers, widespread cell phone usage, basically the technology boom and the resultant wave of increase in capital gains taxes collected from the trading of tech stocks HAVE ANYTHING to do with the Clinton tax receipts increasing?

And let's not forget the number of full time workers increased by 15% in the Clinton years as population increased and more women went into the workforce. This increases tax receipts as well.

 

[InTheLight]

Here's an interesting set of data. When the Republicans lowered the capital gains tax rate in 2003, here are the projected gain/loss and the actual gain/loss.

...............Projected by CBO..........Projected by Democrats...........................Actual.....
2003..........$42 billion.............minus $5.4 billion over next 4 years............$51 billion
2004..........$46 billion......................................................................................$73 billion
2005..........$52 billion......................................................................................$102 billion
2006..........$57 billion......................................................................................$118 billion

Note that the actual amount collected in the last two years is double what the CBO projected. Meanwhile the Democrats projected an average loss of $1.35 billion per year.

 

[InTheLight]

Notice the flurry of activity in the late 90's as the trading of tech stocks really heated up. Then came the tech stock bubble burst of late 2000 followed by 911 and general decrease of stock market activity. The Republicans lowered the capital gains tax rate, and lo and behold, activity increased and so did tax receipts. Lowering tax rates increases economic activity and increases tax receipts. It works.

Here's a chart:



Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2009 - Tax Foundation

 

[InTheLight]

It's been eclipsed in history by the post 9-11 recession, and I don't know if Clinton can be blamed, but that Dot-com Bubble collapse was brutal.

Yes, I had increased my holdings in tech stocks and tech mutual funds in 1998-1999 and a year or so later...BUST!

It takes a 50% gain in the markets to wipe out a 33% loss. The climb out of that tech bubble hole was long and slow, and then....BUST! Crash of Sep-Oct 2008.

Still, fully recovered from all of that and enjoying the current Trump era run up. Strap in, cause the next couple of years is going to be great!