That’s including a recession.
In constant dollars from 1986 to 1990 the revenue went up an average of 4.2% annually. (7.62% nominally)
It sounds like that’s a lot more than the population went up.
Yes, of course a recession will hurt tax revenues. The recession was caused by the S&L crisis, not tax policy. Including it seems fairly disingenuous.
You mean the recession caused by the balooning national debt due to Reagan’s failed fiscal policies?
As was asked earlier by other posters, are you trying to mock Reagan’s economic failures by pointing them out?
Pinning the S&L crisis on Reagan is fair.
Pinning it on the top marginal income tax rate is not.
Checked the CPI from Dec. 1986 to Dec. 1990. Annualized increase of 4.5%. Your 7.62% nominal becomes 3.0% in Dec. 1986 dollars.
Now that you’ve had it twigsplained, of course you’re on the same page.
I think Lincoln might be the most overrated president. He was clearly one of the better ones, but we act like he was the encapsulation of all things good.
What was that? More higher paying jobs available to more people? So instead of Regan taking all the jobs, there was more room for other people to act and make good money. Sounds like that high tax rate was good at preventing the worsening income inequality that we are constantly seeing now.
A low tax rate increases inequality, no doubt. But to some extent a rising tide raises all boats. If the economy is doing well it tends to help the rich people a LOT, but it also helps the poor people a bit.
Personally I think we were on the right side of the Laffer curve when the top marginal tax rate was >= 70% and we’re clearly on the left side now. Raising taxes would increase revenue and reduce inequality.
It still may not be the optimal path if it reduces inequality by hurting poor people a little less than it hurts rich people. Since rich people pay poor people it’s hard to help poor people without (either directly or indirectly) also helping rich people.
But anyone saying that lowering taxes will increase revenues now is most likely bat shit crazy. Maybe, maybe in a high-tax state that is losing jobs/people people to low-tax states. But in a low-tax state that is certainly bonkers.
Remember when Clinton raised taxes and cut spending and balanced the budget from 1998 to 2001 without hurting the economy? That seems a long time ago……
Always difficult to isolate the precise impact on the economy of tax changes though.
That’s all I will say on taxes as this is a Roe v. Wade thread
Wouldn’t hire taxes INCREASE the incentive for rich people to hire people? Wages are tax-deductible. The whole notion of “job creators” and how the wealthy pay the poor is a misguided way to view the economy (obviously this is just my opinion). People wanting to buy what rich people are selling is what creates the jobs for the “poor people”. The demand for goods increases when income inequality is lowered (with the exception of extreme high-end goods and super cheap discount items).
From wikipedia:
According to Quiggin, the Laffer curve was “correct but unoriginal”, but Laffer’s analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve “was original but incorrect.”[14]
Seems like this topic is divergent enough from the Roe v. Wade thread to have its own place.
V_A seems you missed a change to just say “Tax discussion has been aborted from original thread”.
I agree with this.
And i think this is not inconsistent with my prior statement wrt to republican presidential inadequacies.
More wishful thinking based on how you have proposed raising the tide.
Everyone’s a critic these days.
Certainly a miscarriage of justice, no?
It seems like the Republican went off the rails with Harding and other then Eisenhower had a long series of pretty poor Presidents.
It’s been rough.
Nixon - Literal criminal who was forced to resign
Reagan - Lots of illegal activities in the administration. Put America on a worse path economically/fiscally.
GWB - Started a war under known false pretenses, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions wasted.
Trump - Everything
So yeah, they have a strong track record for electing terrible presidents.
My question to you would be if we had less inequality would the lower income classes be better off or just be doing the same with rich people less rich. We assume that all that money at the top would be spread among the bottom of the tax rate was different, but I’m not sure that’s a good assumption.
[ninja’d up above]
Not directed at me, but I’ll swing at it.
We would have less inequality if more wealth wasn’t concentrated in the hands of a few. Kind of obvious, but it needs elaboration. A few holding most of the wealth have greater power to drive asset prices that directly impacts those with lower incomes. Think … oh, say, the current housing bubble, among other things.
If wealth was redistributed, how would that be accomplished? There’s 42,424,242 different ways to do it. The better question is what would be the most effective way to do it? It doesn’t need to all go to those in the bottom tax rates. Certainly, no matter how you try to do it some poor people will find ways to piss their newly-acquired money away and still be poor.
There’s an argument that putting money in the hands of the poor will drive inflation. That’s the argument re: inflation driven by stimulus checks, but their economic impact has long since diminished; if they really did cause inflation, we should have seen inflation take off shortly after those checks went out. I suspect those in lower classes will largely use money dropped in their lap to continue to make ends meet, perhaps pay off some debt. None of that would be itself inflationary; that would be more likely to happen by giving money to people who would go use it on extras they otherwise wouldn’t go out and buy.