Skip to main content

As far as I'm concerned, we have not only a mandate, but a responsibility to restore the reasonable financial obligations of the wealthiest Americans toward their country that existed before the Reagan administration.  There was never any objective reason to cut them in the first place: The Laffer Curve mumbo jumbo that was conjured to justify Reagan's upper-income and business tax cuts has been discredited so thoroughly, so many times since then that there is absolutely no excuse not to restore the previous rates for the top tax brackets.  

Frankly, this is the one and only way we're going to rebuild this country on a robust, sustainable basis, so it doesn't even matter that we don't presently have the House - this has to be our position, and we have to fight for it until it gets done.  Merely ending the Bush top-tier tax bribes is not even close to being sufficient, and we certainly shouldn't be offering to compromise bedrock rights like Social Security and Medicare to achieve that piddling rollback.  The Reagan tax cuts were the beginning of the erosion of our society, and the endless cycle of budget cuts that first began to turn America's schools, roads, and hospitals from the envy of the world into crumbling artifacts of a bygone era.

The top marginal income tax rate from 1965 to 1980 was 70%.  In 1985, it was 50%.  By 1988, it was 28% - a reduction of more than half.  The Clinton tax increases that helped build a flawed recovery from the Reagan-Bush recession only brought the tax level back up to 39.6% in 1993, but since then have only been at 35% - before all the deductions and loopholes and tax shelter bullshit the rich use to evade contributing back to the country that made their wealth possible.  As we know, many of them avoid paying altogether through various combinations of loopholes, accounting chicanery like Mitt Romney's tax-exempt "charitable trust," offshoring, or outright fraud.  So even if we fail to defeat all those tactics, at least restoring a decent top-tier income and capital gains tax rate would make it harder overall for these people to end up paying less than their own employees.

I know some elements of the corrupt media (e.g., Politico) are already spewing the propaganda of its masters by insinuating that Democrats in office are somehow going "extreme" for merely wanting to restore the Clinton tax levels, but if so, they're extremist conservatives, not liberals or (LOL) "leftists."  Let's be clear here, and let's have the nation be clear about this: Ronald Reagan was WRONG, period.  Hard stop.  He was a failed President.  The cascading legacy of his fiscal policies has been eviscerating and torturing this nation for thirty goddam years.  It's time we ended that legacy.  It's time we recognize that this past election, which so many have billed as an "historic realignment" and a final end to the Reagan era, must have real political and economic consequences to match.

Regardless of what we manage to push through Congress in the next two years, if all we even seek is a restoration of the "feel-good Reaganism" of the Clinton administration, the very next Republican to sit in the Oval Office with even a closely divided Congress is going to completely obliterate every last vestige of this nation's economy and the American middle-class without breaking a sweat.  If our tax dollars just end up going to subsidize the wealth and luxury of the rich, how long before taxation itself is privatized, and instead of the IRS there are just corporate collection agencies with private armies forcing people at gunpoint to pay their own employers for the privilege of working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week?  It's happened before, folks - it was the economic system of the Middle Ages, called Manorialism.  And that's basically what the modern conservative ideal of economics boils down to: Glorified slavery.

Republicans are engaged in the most ludicrous theatrical display of concern over this so-called "fiscal cliff" and "debt apocalypse," well we can offer them a complete and total resolution to that problem - a permanent end to deficits and debt.  And it starts with the folks who own and puppeteer the GOP once again paying taxes in proportion to their privileges, as they had at the height of our nation's prosperity during the generation of America's greatest accomplishments.  The fact is we have the answer to every lame canard and manufactured economic issue they generate, while they don't have a single answer to any problem whatsoever.  They ARE the problem, and they've been the problem for thirty years.  Government is not the problem: Republicans in government and the degenerate corruption they represent are the problem.

So I want to draw a line not merely in the sand, but carved in granite: No compromise on taxes or Social Security / Medicare rights until every single inflation-adjusted dime taken out of education, healthcare, and infrastructure since Reagan is restored to the public sector.  An entire generation has grown up believing that budget cuts and eroding options are a law of nature, and that has to stop no matter what.  We have to restore the previous culture of optimism and progress that had faith in their ability to make life better for their children than they found it themselves.  That means we finally relegate Reaganism to the dustbin of history where it belongs, and don't merely quibble over degrees.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  FINALLY! (15+ / 0-)

    Sweet Baby Jesus I was searching for how to put this into words. Not even the most progressive Dem has made this their argument. It's not enough to get rid of this Bush bullshit, we go back to Regan and prove once and for all that this was the largest mistake period.

    Thank you for what should be the new Dem line in the sand.

    •  No more lines in sand. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, eru, jessical, chmood

      This has to be a line in stone.

      "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Standing with you on that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, chmood

        Repeal the Reagan tax cuts.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:27:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  May we also please consider eliminating the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Reagan tax increase on social security recipients. The rule he putin was that if a single person got a total of $25K or a couple got about $32K or a bit more, suddenly half of their SS payment was subject to ordinary income tax, and if the number went up about seven grand more, 85% of it became taxable. This might have made sense given the rates in 1984 and without considering intervening inflation, but now it is possible for someone with ONLY SS to become subject to income tax on their benefits, because the lid is nearly 24 grand on the first day, and creeps up wtih COLAs figured as percentages. ($2080 X 12 = 24960.)

    •  YES! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Choosing my tag line was a close call between

      Reverse Reaganomics AND Rubinomics

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 04:30:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Main Point of Those High Upper End Rates Isn't (18+ / 0-)

    so much to gather revenue as to prevent extreme incomes from being offered and sought. That, in turn, (along with other taxation) kept most of the nation's income and wealth mostly in the hands of the bottom 80% or so, instead of concentrated in the top 3-5% as today.

    We only had a vibrant large middle class once in human history, during the mid 20th century period of American and other developed world liberalism which required such compressive progressive taxation to keep the wealth in circulation.

    The other thing those compressive tax rates prevents is the bubble-crash economy, because with so much money in the hands of the people, the more modest wealth the rich do have can be invested mainly in production. Today businesses are sitting on trillions in cash as the stock market is more about gambling than production, because the people are tapped out and can't buy any more.

    Of course most of our leaders in both parties know this. That's why we have to begin working on creating better Democrats and not continue the past 30 years of mostly trying to pressure the ones the party creates.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:46 AM PST

  •  Does that mean bringing back all the loopholes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd, Roger Fox

    that the 1986 act eliminated?

    •  Of course not. Stupid question. (6+ / 0-)

      "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:23:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ahhh, yes it does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In the form of breaks for emerging tech and markets like Wind power, HVDC supergrid, pumped hydro and solar thermal storage and Solar.

        Domestic investment pre 86 TRA was rewarded.

        Remember in 1980 the top marginal rate on income was 70%, and the effective rate was 22.3%.

        Today its 35% and about 19-20%.

        SO in between 1980 and 2012 about 60% of deductions exemptions and shelters were removed. Some of them were based on Industrial policy which Sidney Hillman advocated for in the 30's. Hillman was a great labor organizer, head of the ACW, later AFLCIO. Part of FDR's kitchen cabinet, a huge advocate for the Wisconsin Plan which became Social Security.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The details are good for policy discussion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          but as far as politics goes, we simply have to get our ducks in a row that 39% is not even close to being an adequate top marginal tax rate.

          "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:45:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  39% aint going to do it, no phreakin way (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour, chmood

            details again....

            We have to stop taxing working and middle class families out of the economy. And current tax policy helps make an unstable economy.

            Without large scale changes there will be a major economic downturn before the end of the decade.

            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:32:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Lets update the 86 TRA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Add 6 brackets, @ 3, 6, 9, 12, 20, 40 million.

      First 3 @ 8%, 9%,  10%, to about 60-70k

      I dont want revenue so much as to move tax burden from working and middle class families to the top .1%. Those working and middle class families should be allowed to keep what they earn.

      Some sectors of manufacturing arent coming back, I think some can be grown back in the US. Take Clothing, last year I looked a at blue jeans, imported for $20, made in the USA for $25. Not a huge difference.

      We can work with that sector, ahhh, tariffs... throw the US Manufacturer a tax break to expand, capital investments in the US that create jobs should be rewarded.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:47:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take the 1980 tax rates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and update them for inflation, and you get:

        1980 tax brackets

        0 - 3400        0
        3400 - 5500    14%
        5500 - 7600    16%
        7600 - 11900    18%
        11900 - 16000    21%

        16000 - 20200    24%
        20200 - 24600    28%
        24600 - 29900    32%
        29900 - 35200    37%
        35200 - 45800    43%

        45800 - 60000    49%
        60000 - 85600    54%
        85600 - 109400      59%
        109400 - 162400    64%
        162400 - 215400    68%
        215400 -        70%

        adjusted for inflation comes out to
        0 - 5780        0
        5780 - 9350    14%
        9350 - 12920    16%
        12920 - 20230    18%
        20230 - 27200    21%

        27200 - 34300    24%
        34300 - 41820    28%
        41820 - 50830    32%
        50830 - 59840    37%
        59840 - 77860    43%

        77860 - 100200        49%
        100200 - 145520    54%
        145520 - 185980    59%
        185980 - 276080    64%
        176080 - 366180    70%

        Then add in new brackets for the filthy rich
        366180 - 1000000    75%
        1000000 - 4999999    80%
        5000000 - 14999999    85%
        15000000 -         90%

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 02:12:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  From 1942 to 1964 (9+ / 0-)

    The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 91%.  That was lowered to 70% in 1964 and it remained that way until 1981.  This was the longest period of sustained prosperity in the history of our nation.  Since then we have had the lowering of tax rates, the weakening of tariff and trade policies, the weakening of regulation on large companies, and the continual erosion of the middle and working class.  Raising the tax rate on the wealthy would restore the check on accumulated wealth and its tendency to distort our economy and corrupt the political system-- as it's been doing the past 30 years.

    For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. --John Maynard Keynes

    by Kurt from CMH on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:20:06 AM PST

    •  Let's reserve the 91% for "extremists" (hehehe). (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, Kurt from CMH, chmood

      We, the right reasonable folk, will settle for restoring 70%.

      "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:03:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think 70% is near the balance point (4+ / 0-)

        remember in 1980 the effective rate was 22.3%, so if you did the right thing and invested in the US you got tax breaks and shelters. Dollar wise thats a huge chunk of change to reward good behavior, which was part of New Deal Tax Policy.

        Recessions were shorter and shallower, and every recovery saw job creation, we spent 5% of GDP on infrastructure, not 1.3%. Today that would mean the Government spending 750 billion, and tax policy might incentivize another 200-400 billion being moved to domestic investment. All told that would create between 20 and 27 million jobs.

        Now adays, tax policy favors overseas and market speculation. And thats why after the 1986 Tax Reform Act, (among other things) we see the jobless recovery after recessions (1990, 2000, 2008-) and these recessions are longer and deeper.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:08:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  " '64 in '14! " (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        not a bad slogan for a plank on re-establishing the 1964 tax rates once we retake the House in 2014.

        We WILL need to retake the House to do it, but hey - why not?  It's gotta be done, and there's no time like the present to start!

        "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

        by chmood on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:15:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We will most likely lose seats in 2014. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Big money has a way bigger electoral advantage in midterm elections, and turnout is typically low among the party with the White House.

          "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:26:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know they keep saying that, but isn't it just a (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...self-fulfilling prophecy?  I mean, the Pugs have been turning their folks out every 2 years like clockwork for decades, because they've been determined to attain the current mess as their desired result.

            If DEM turnout drops @ the mid-terms, well that's what we need to fix, right?

            "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

            by chmood on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:22:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Effective rates are way more important (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, Mr Robert, chmood

      And you have to consider that after WW2 we manufactured everything for the world.

      But once Japan and the EU were rebuilt, they were making things and wanting to trade.

      It was in this post WW2 rebuilding time frame that some equilibrium was restored to the global economy. By 1965 quarterly US trade deficits were the norm and by 1975 annual US trade deficits were the norm.

      SO I think its fair to say that by 1975 the Global economy had achieved balance. That balance gets screwed by tax breaks for outsourcing jobs and then the signing of NAFTA.

      We need to look at the WW2 and Marshall plan era as an environment that required those high rates.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:58:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, the GOP is monopolizing ideological purity! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm jealous of how only the GOP got to enjoy having their asses handed to them on election night due to their uncompromising commitment to ideological purity!  Maybe we can splinter OUR party by requiring ideological purity, too.  So let's advocate for repealing the Reagan tax cuts (not just Bush's), and refusing any and all entitlement reform.  Then, let's primary anyone who doesn't agree!!  Only then we can enjoy watching our ideologically pure warriors carry our flag into battle on election night as much as the right enjoyed watching theirs.  This is the best idea since supporting Nader in 2000!!

    •  This has nothing to do with "ideology." (5+ / 0-)

      The upper-income and corporate portion of the Reagan tax cuts failed.  There was no objective basis for them, and the arguments made in favor of them have been discredited.  Moreover, the lot of ordinary Americans has improved only to the piddling degree we've retreated from Reagan's policies.  In other words, here in the reality-based community, the best thing would be to restore the upper-income and corporate tax rates to their pre-Reagan levels.  To be against that because of some Overton Window bullshit is ideological centrism, and not rational.

      "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:28:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's funny because I thought I was reality-based (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I thought Nader had some damn compelling arguments, too.  It didn't mean that his candidacy was good for America, though.  Whether or not one agrees with your underlying arguments about the Laffer curve, most Americans are not ready to return to the tax rates that existed before 1980, whether or not it would be good for them.  Anyone who advocates it will be labeled an extremist.  If we can first get back to Clinton are rates and if Citizens United is overruled by constitutional amendment and if the next generation stays as blue as it is now, then in 20 years we can have a debate about where we should really go to keep from moving to oligarcy.  Until then, we need baby steps unless we want to end up ruing our hold on power like the left wing version of the Tea Party.

        •  Your comment is nonsensical. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox, trumpeter

          What the hell do the tactical disincentives of spoilers in an election without runoffs have to do with the fact that (a)  that the Reagan tax cuts for the rich have failed, (b) most Americans have no problem with just about any level of tax increase on the rich, and (c) the only way to change the debate is to change the debate, not engage in some lame neo-DLC self-fulfilling prophecy that America isn't ready for common sense.

          Anyone who advocates it will be labeled an extremist.
          Oh noes!!1!  The people who label us Marxists for advocating 3% tax increases for the rich after decades of cuts will also label us Marxists for advocating 10%, 20%, 30% increases.  Whatevuh shall we do?!  Are you for real, or a troll?

          "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:52:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You pegged me. (0+ / 0-)

            Yes.  You've figured me out.  I'm a troll.  The giveaway was that I was arguing that the policy positions of today's Democratic party are good policy positions for this day in age and part of keeping together a winning coalition.

            I simply think that, regardless of whether it is actually good policy, advocating 70% marginal tax rates is political suicide for a host of reasons.  If you can't see that, so be it.

            I also support President Obama and believe he says what he means.  When he says he wants a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction, I think he means it and I'm willing to get behind him.  If you aren't, that's your perogative.  

            •  This is a balanced approach to deficit reduction. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox, chmood

              It's been so unbalanced in favor of tax cuts for so long that only massive tax increases on the wealthy can bring back any semblance of balance.  Any claim that we have to sacrifice SS and Medicare to "balance" out some tiny tax increase on the rich is just nonsense.  There is no reason not to massively increase taxes on the wealthy, and every reason to do so.  

              So you need to decide whether your politics are reality-based or just another example of the centrist, Overton Window-driven jellyfish politics that leaves Americans perpetually on the verge of poverty every time a Republican gets put in office and reverses your "balanced approach" with a wave of their hand.

              The President can use whatever rhetoric he deems fit, but the objective of this Party is to restore sanity and decency to the tax code.  That means huge tax increases on the wealthy.  Nothing else can rebuild this country.

              "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

              by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:49:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That person seems to be advocating (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour, trumpeter

                for continued slow GDP growth, low job creation numbers and increasing income and wealth disparity.

                And thats the best way to hold the Democratic coalition together.......

                Must be snark.....

                FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:23:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm waiting for the saber to come rattling out of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              the sky to chop my head off.

              SO youre saying we need to keep our real working ideas a secret, so ...

              We can never truly solve any problems and thus consistently yield ground to the oligarchical class.

              Thats a winning plan, promote shit that wont work, that'll hold the coalition together, right you are I must some kind of dumbass, because all these years I studied solutions that actually solved real problems.

              OMG 50+ years, a waste, W@haaaaaaaa.......

              FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:17:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I dont have 20 years left, I aint waiting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Nonsensical is right.

            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:11:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Heres a napkin to wipe the spittle off (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          your chin.....

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:10:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Let the economy fail, repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Or we can choose a stable economy.

      SO UR advocating for a 25 yr recession just to make sure SS goes broke.

      39.6% aint going to do it. IT will fail.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:20:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thom Hartmann has been talking about this (4+ / 0-)

    for years.

    For the record, I agree.

    (And Troub, if you aren't listening to Thom, you are missing a great and very smart show)

    I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

    My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

    by pucklady on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:38:15 AM PST

  •  The 1986 Act INCREASED the effective rate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessical, Roger Fox, J M F

    of many taxpayers by implementing limits on such deductions as 1) mortgage interest, 2) itemized deductions in total, and 3) passive losses.
      You can still argue that the top tax rates were lower than they should have been, but to only look at tax rates, without the corresponding changes to the taxable income, distorts the facts and lessens the argument.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:41:17 AM PST

  •  Upper tax bracket should be 70% over $1.4M (4+ / 0-)

    In 1967 the top bracket was 70% for incomes over $200,000. If we scale that for inflation we get a threshold of $1,371,866.26.

    It takes about $2M today to live a high income luxury lifestyle, and that might result in a $1.4M taxable income after deductions of mortgage payments, etc. So we are only taxing those with extreme lifestyles. They still get to spend $3M for every $10M in taxable income above $1.4M.

    The next lower bracket should revert to the Clinton rate of 39.6%.

  •  Austerity is the only answer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Roger Fox, J M F

    Because "Greece" something, something..

    And "Job Creators" and Galt something and "free market" something, something..

    The delusions write themselves.

    Let's do some nation-building here. FDR style.

    Maybe one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:55:58 AM PST

  •  Join the club, we've got lotsa room (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Recessions are short and sweet and always have job creation during recovery.

    I've felt for the longest time, I didnt want to hear about repealing the Bush tax cuts, I want to talk about repealing the Reagan Tax cuts.

    To me repeal the Bush tax cuts was me getting thrown under the bus. And being told, YA cant talk about that here......

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:23:21 AM PST

  •  Santayana who? (0+ / 0-)

    Those that forget the 1984 presidential election are condemned to repeat it.

  •  According to IRS statistics (4+ / 0-)

    analyzed by Wealth for the Common Good, the top 400 richest Americans paid an effective tax rate (after all deductions and loopholes) of 51 percent of their income in 1955 under pinko socialist Dwight Eisenhower. That plummeted to 16.7 percent by 2007.

    The Republicans are so keen on going back to the Ward Cleaver 1950s. Lets do it, at least with regards to the tax code.

    Wealth for the Common Good pulled down the Shifting Responsibility paper from their web site, but I have a personal copy of the PDF. Kosmail me if you are interested in it.

    Trickle Down Economics 101: They get the golden parachute, we get the golden shower.

    by NoMoreLies on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:45:59 AM PST

  •  The class war really began with RR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, Troubadour

    When Reagan left office, the bottom 30% or so (the bottom quintile and about half of the second quintile) actually paid more in taxes (total effective federal tax rate) than before all of his many actions on taxation.  

    This attachment is a must have:

    (More specific to this thread, I would not return to the 70% rate but Clinton's tax rates plus a 50% rate on income above $1M)

    (Though I would tax all income, estate taxes--with the $1M exemption--and Capital Gains, as ordinary income.)

  •  YO Troub, TnR, excellphreakinent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:38:31 PM PST

  •  am i mistaken? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But didn't reagan also raise payroll tax rates (SS Medicare etc.) so there was more money in those funds to 'borrow' so he could affectively mask deficits?
    And doesn't that mean that the portion of the deficit, caused by the tax cut for the wealthy, was paid for by those affected by those withholding taxes?
    Did the borrowing from the funds exceed the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthy? And does that mean the less well off were stuck with paying more of the cost of the  defense of the country than the well off?
    So we shifted some of the total burden from the very well off to the less well off in the name of 'fairness' huh?
    Personally i'd like us to never again save social security to pay for tax cuts for rich people.

    I'd love to hear the authors thoughts about this if the author is willing and has the patience for a guy like me.

    i must add. i've hated reagan since i heard him talking about students and hippies when he was Gov. of CA.

    •  Pretty much, yeah. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox, dennis1958, trumpeter

      Republicans cut rich people's taxes and raise everyone else's taxes, because their ideal economy is a medieval manorial one where workers basically have to pay their own employers for the privilege of making them rich.

      "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:53:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like DUH. Obama never played poker... well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You start your negotiation with "Here's the deal..."

    Insist that Congress pass a tax bill NOW, before Jan 1st. With the following:

    1) Top tax rate jumps to 50%, remaining rates stay the same.

    2) Payroll tax cut remains for 2013, drops to 1/2 in 2014, gone for 2015.

    3) TOTAL ELIMINATION of Corporate incomes tax.

    4) Capital gains, long term remains as is, short term is taxed at the same rate as earned income, including the graduated scale. Most people would be subject to 10-20% max.

    5a) Make DIVIDENDS subject to tax rate of standard income, including the graduated scale, so most people would only pay 10-15%, while the very wealthy will pay .... 50%.


    5b) Regulation REQUIRING Corporations to disperse 75% of quarterly profits as dividends every quarter. No more Apple with $100 BILLION in cash laying around.

    All middle class deductions remain intact, period.

    Oil, Gas, and agriculture subsidies eliminated or altered to ONLY benefit small family farms.

    That is the starting point, and if they do NOT agree and implement this, then come Jan 2nd, the top rate the President will agree to is... 60%, and on Jan 3rd the top rate is 70%, etc, etc.

    If you do not agree, the President will move, as David Stockman and Paul Krugman advise, for an immediate $5 TRILLION surtax on the top 1%.

    Clearly threaten that he will NOT agree to any debt ceiling increase if these changes are not implemented. He will instead, come the next debt ceiling crisis,  invoke the 14th amendment and implement ALL these by dictate as the US Constitution empowers him to do.

  •  For your information. (0+ / 0-)

    Tax Policy Center has historical tables on marginal tax rates going back to 1945.  Remember to adjust dollar amounts for inflation.  I'd be hesitant to endorse a straight repeal, which would increase taxes on almost half of Americans--with 20 percent of taxpayers going to north of 39 percent on the margin--and reintroduce several more income brackets.

    To secure rate differentiation and further increases, it's probably wiser to do so gradually--giving the public and economy time to digest and appreciate services justifying the new revenue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site