4 ms·

"Three decades" is doing a lot of work there. Reagan?

rayiner 2y ago
The data starts at 1979, before Reagan’s major tax reform in 1986: “In contrast, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent has remained relatively high over this period, ranging between 25 and 35 percent since 1979.” Reagan’s tax reform wasn’t a gimmick: it broadened the tax base (to encompass more kinds of income) and lowered rate to keep the effective tax rate basically the same. The biggest problem is we simply doesn’t tax enough. We want to grow the scope of our government to be more like Europe, but we aren’t willing to tax the middle and upper middle class the way they do in Europe. We had an au pair from Germany. Our effective tax rate in a blue state as a dual income professional couple was the same as she paid at her entry level office job.
- woooooo 2y ago
  Reagan did 3 big tax bills, 81 tax cut, 83 social security and the 86 reforms you're referencing. You're right that the 86 reform was pretty progressive but with all 3, the rich did great, poor did alright and middle class did poorly, IMO.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    According to the data, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1% increased from about 15% in 1979 to 25% in 2019, while the share paid by the bottom 20% decreased from about 20% to 15%.
    - woooooo 2y ago
      That's absolute dollars right? As in, they're paying more total dollars in income tax, despite a lower tax rate, because they're making so much more compared to 79? (Income inequality has steadily gone up). What was their effective rate in those years? What percentage of their income are they paying compared to the nonrich, and how did it trend?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        It’s not absolute dollars. It’s the percentage of the total tax burden that they’re paying.
        woooooo 2y ago
        Because income inequality is growing, they have more of the total money, they're paying more of the total taxes despite a lower rate. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's hard to call it progressive.
  - ghufran_syed 2y ago
    you’re assuming that the tax bills had no effect on the economy…instead, the 80’s saw a massive reduction in inflation and tremendous economic growth that helped all parts of society. Is it possible that the tax cuts and the economic growth were related?

The data starts at 1979, before Reagan’s major tax reform in 1986: “In contrast, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent has remained relatively high over this period, ranging between 25 and 35 percent since 1979.” Reagan’s tax reform wasn’t a gimmick: it broadened the tax base (to encompass more kinds of income) and lowered rate to keep the effective tax rate basically the same. The biggest problem is we simply doesn’t tax enough. We want to grow the scope of our government to be more like Europe, but we aren’t willing to tax the middle and upper middle class the way they do in Europe. We had an au pair from Germany. Our effective tax rate in a blue state as a dual income professional couple was the same as she paid at her entry level office job.

woooooo 2y ago
Reagan did 3 big tax bills, 81 tax cut, 83 social security and the 86 reforms you're referencing. You're right that the 86 reform was pretty progressive but with all 3, the rich did great, poor did alright and middle class did poorly, IMO.
- rayiner 2y ago
  According to the data, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1% increased from about 15% in 1979 to 25% in 2019, while the share paid by the bottom 20% decreased from about 20% to 15%.
  - woooooo 2y ago
    That's absolute dollars right? As in, they're paying more total dollars in income tax, despite a lower tax rate, because they're making so much more compared to 79? (Income inequality has steadily gone up). What was their effective rate in those years? What percentage of their income are they paying compared to the nonrich, and how did it trend?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      It’s not absolute dollars. It’s the percentage of the total tax burden that they’re paying.
      - woooooo 2y ago
        Because income inequality is growing, they have more of the total money, they're paying more of the total taxes despite a lower rate. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's hard to call it progressive.
- ghufran_syed 2y ago
  you’re assuming that the tax bills had no effect on the economy…instead, the 80’s saw a massive reduction in inflation and tremendous economic growth that helped all parts of society. Is it possible that the tax cuts and the economic growth were related?