Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NorCoGOP
The most bizarre charge of all is that Reagan's tax cuts resulted in decreased taxes for the rich and more for the poor. I can only assume these people were accidentally transported here from an alternate universe since the 1980s saw the percentage of federal taxes paid by the rich increase while the percentage paid by the bottom 50 percent decreased. The top one percent of Americans went from bearing 18 percent of the federal tax burden in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The top five percent saw their share of the income tax rise from 35 percent to 44 percent. And the bottom 50 percent of American taxpayers? Their share of taxes actually decreased from 7 to 6 percent -- not a huge decrease, but it clearly disproves the argument that the rich got favorable treatment from Reagan while the poor got the shaft.

Well, this can be tricky. One has to exclude first the possibility that the reason of the shift in the tax burden was not caused by the shift of wealth. The maharajas always will pay more taxes than the poorest peasants for a simple reason that poorest are not able to support the state apparatus.

I would rather see how much tax burden is located on the top 1%, top 5% and top 50% of wealth. If one percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth "bearing 25 percent of the federal tax burden" maybe is TOO LITTLE! Do not forget also that such tax like Social Security is regressive (and being used to pay for other budget items including those subsidising lucrative government contracts).

16 posted on 03/23/2002 9:40:02 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: A. Pole
I would rather see how much tax burden is located on the top 1%, top 5% and top 50% of wealth. If one percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth "bearing 25 percent of the federal tax burden" maybe is TOO LITTLE! Do not forget also that such tax like Social Security is regressive (and being used to pay for other budget items including those subsidising lucrative government contracts).

Your position seems to supported by nothing more than Marxist class warfare. The best tax system is one that maximizes tax revenue while minimizing taxes as a percentage of GDP.

17 posted on 03/23/2002 9:46:42 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: A. Pole

I would rather see how much tax burden is located on the top 1%, top 5% and top 50% of wealth.

Your wish is my command. Here’s the income tax burden changed by President Reagan:

                Top Tax Top        Top         From       Lowest

                Rate          1%        5%         51-95%   50%

1981        70%        17.89%   35.36%   57.22%   7.42%

1987        38.5%     24.81%   43.26%   50.67%   6.07%    

As you can see by lowering the highest marginal rate from 70 to 38.5% President Reagan shifted the tax burden more on the richest segment of society. While this is counterintuitive, it’s not when you consider how people react when having most of their earnings confiscated by the government. People will shift their activities from high taxed activities to low taxed activities (such as leisure). So by lowering the highest marginal tax rate the rich paid more in taxes.

26 posted on 03/23/2002 12:15:48 PM PST by xinga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson