While there is a limit to how much you can cut taxes and get a corresponding increase in GDP that increases revenue equal to or greater than the tax cut, it can be done. A 50-70% federal income tax rate is an abomination that disincentivizes the kind of risk taking and innovation that pushes this country forward and increases our standard of living. I'm of the opinion that Reagan's cuts bumped our GDP and as a result federal tax revenues. I believe that federal tax revenues decreased once under Reagan (in 1983). His tax cuts fueled the boom that enabled Clinton to balance the budget. The greatest impact on federal revenue over the last 40+ years wasn't a tax cut but the 2008 recession on 2009 revenue.kalm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:11 pm"You're kidding yourself if you think cutting taxes is really cutting taxes. We’re simply deferring massive taxes unfairly and immorally putting huge debt burdens on future generations and that is just wrong."UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:48 pm
1) Economics is not inherently dishonest. The data tells a story. There are multiple variables and the story is up to interpretation. Saying that Reagan raised taxes on the middle class without qualifying that he also lowered taxes on the middle class is dishonest. When Reagan took office someone in the middle class was likely paying between 28 and 54+% in federal income taxes. When he left office they were paying between 15 and 28%. Income taxes on the middle class were close to cut in half during his presidency. Were there other changes that increased their taxes in other areas? Yes. Did they outweigh the overall reduction in their income taxes? On average, I doubt it.
2) Yes, it could be argued that the increase started with Reagan but it could also be argued that it started to inch up under Carter. More importantly Reagan isn't responsible for what happened after his presidency. The vast majority of the increase happened under Obama, trump and Biden. They and those Congresses are responsible for the budgets they passed and signed and their impact on the national debt.
3) I'm glad you've found a simple-minded playdate who also wants to blame all of America's woes on Reagan. You and he are entitled to your opinions but that doesn't make them accurate.
But yes, let's blame everything on Reagan and go back to a 70% income tax rate. I believe California has a max of of a 13.3% income tax rate. Add in local taxes and a high earner in California could be paying 85+% of their income to the government. That's not a disincentive to taking risks, building wealth and innovating at all.![]()
David Stockman -Reagan’s Budget Director and one the original supply side architects.
Not to mention deferment of public infrastructure and look here…we’re now once again talking about cutting social security insurance.
You were saying?
The impact of Reagan's tax cuts on our debt to GDP ratio were negative but a drop in the bucket compared to what happened under Obama, trump and Biden.

I agree that infrastructure funding is a problem. Based on how Congress and Presidents allocate funding, I think that problem would exist with or without Reagan's tax cuts. Blaming Reagan is lazy and avoids addressing real problems.
What did Reagan do to Social Security?









