Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

Camille, here's a graph for you.

I'm sorry that it isn't pretty and colorful, but it certainly is informative!

It depicts the strong inverse correlation between the top capital gains tax rate and taxable realizations:

PJ..you're getting as frisky with the graphs and charts as WTF is with his links
Keep 'em coming though...I love me a graph!

C x Originally Posted by Camille

Well darlin, you know how much I love to turn on a lady.

Those of you arguing about tax can go suck wind.

Most of us can't get excited about how we are taxed, or anything like that. We don't have enough income, capital gains or otherwise, to make a difference in any kind of tax structure. Nor do we have the influence, political, financial or otherwise to make a difference.

We can't imagine any structure that would be much different than the one now. And I'm too busy scratching out enuf cash to live on a shoestring than to spend any wasted time on this subject.

Weren't you the guy that started this thread?

Weren't you the guy that started this thread? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yeah, but it has devolved from the facts about Reagan to tax politics and theory. My OP was fairly limited in its subject matter.

Weren't you the guy that started this thread? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yeah, but it didn't turn out as good as he planned.

I thought it turnrded rather well

I thought it turnrded rather well Originally Posted by WTF

Kind of slow witted tonight, huh?

Tonight?

Tonight? Originally Posted by pjorourke

In most years, according to the extremely pro-Reagan site, Congress increased Reagan's budgets. On top of that, this extra debt accrued interest. All told Congress's share of the increase totaled $0.29 trillion—but that's far less than the $1.60tn increase under Reagan.
The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step growing with inflation and the economy—if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a guy who said he'd do far better than before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP. The slight upward slope of the green line is due to the Congressional budget increases Originally Posted by WTF

Just to make sure we are back on topic like some of you Ronnie apologist requested.

Pray do tell where the author went wrong? Surely not Saint Ronnie started all this? There must be a mistake in the author's calculation.


When will you boys do the first step and admit Ronnie's problem?

WTF, we appreciate how much you love that graph -- this is the third time you've posted it, if you count the link to it in post #80. But all it does is represent the imaginative fantasies of some polemicist who obviously has an axe to grind.

And why do you keep persisting with whatever silly statement or non sequitur you want, irrespective of what others have posted?

When will you boys do the first step and admit Ronnie's problem? Originally Posted by WTF

Where Reagan failed was in allowing government growth and spending to continue unabated. Like every other modern president (except for Bill Clinton) he failed to halt this inexorable expansion. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

See what I mean? You pay no attention at all. No wonder someone posted that you seem not to be able to intelligently participate in a discussion. (I was not the one who said that, but I certainly agree!)

Pray do tell where the author went wrong? Originally Posted by WTF

The author is wrong about almost everything. Just take a look at that stuff you cut & pasted in post #80. One sentence starts out with, "The economic stimulus of that debt..." The guy apparently thinks that running up massive debt is wonderful "stimulus" for the economy. Try telling that to the Greeks or the Japanese.

And just for fun, take a look at this:

http://zfacts.com/p/1159.html#8593

The author obviously has no understanding of what prolonged recovery from the Great Depression, when and why it ended, or the relationship between debt and economic prosperity. Given that, why should anyone take any of his "analysis" seriously?

That's why I suggested that a more appropriate name for that website would be "zmyths.com."

Yawn

Just as I thought, Shoot the messanger. [sic] Originally Posted by WTF

Well, if you would refrain from posting links to stuff written by people who have no understanding of what they're talking about, you would be able to defend the messenger!

But since that's not the case, people have a tendency to yawn (or laugh!) when they read your clueless posts.

I"m not going to comment on all the back and forth, but fixing the problem of the gross underpayment by the top few income earners is easy. Tax capital gains and regular income rates once your gains get above a certain number, say $5k or $10k. And make income on muni bonds taxable after say the first $25k.

This isn't politically palatable because it will hit major party donors. But it would solve the problem. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

many things have unintended consequences. taxing muni bond income will raise interest rates on state and municipal obligations thus either limiting services, which tend to impact the lower income strata, or causing state and local taxes to rise, impacting again the lower strata from regressive taxes WTF frequently rails against.

to my way of thinking limiting government services to the basics has a certain appeal, however uncertain i am of its ultimate effect. taxing municipal bond interest could be a good thing, perhaps unfunded federal mandates wouldnt be as frequent or as large and people like theresa kerry would have to start contributing to the load; the shawl wearing, out stretched-armed, accent-affected, lover of the "little people".