President gives speech praising new law shifting tax burden from poor to rich

[RandomGuy]

qM3cH9xiHMU



In response to the Occupy Wall Street protests, some leading conservatives have begun referring to themselves as "the 53 percent"--a reference to their view that the 47 percent of mostly lower-income Americans who don't pay income taxes are getting an undeserved break. Conservatives also argued against closing tax loopholes for the richest Americans and for corporations.

Which is why it's interesting to see President Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, laud the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act--whose 25th anniversary is this week--by declaring that under the new law, "millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether" and that rich people and big corporations would "pay their fair share."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/reagan-lauded-tax-law-dropping-poor-rolls-143904344.html
Socialist policies for the future.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That 47% stat is so meaningless without context. It could also be listed as as 47% of the population makes less than $27k annually.

Its called a rich-poor gap. Its called the elderly and children. That is not a good indicator for retention of the status quo.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your $27,000 number is out of context too and intentionally misleading. Many households make a lot more than that and still pay no income tax.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your $27,000 number is out of context too and intentionally misleading. Many households make a lot more than that and still pay no income tax.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new02_001.htm

There are my numbers. And yours?

[Cry Havoc]

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new02_001.htm

There are my numbers. And yours?

But... but but but... his numbers come from a conservative think tank! They're just as valid and unbiased!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But... but but but... his numbers come from a conservative think tank! They're just as valid and unbiased!

i doubt he will even respond. He is not interested in discovering the truth but rather upholding his version of it.

[coyotes_geek]

That 47% stat is so meaningless without context. It could also be listed as as 47% of the population makes less than $27k annually.

Its called a rich-poor gap. Its called the elderly and children. That is not a good indicator for retention of the status quo.


Your $27,000 number is out of context too and intentionally misleading. Many households make a lot more than that and still pay no income tax.

I don't think you two are talking apples to apples, i.e. individual incomes vs. household incomes.

Also, that 47% number for not paying taxes is a percentage of households, not individuals. link (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1)

[vy65]

Figures from August 2007 might not reflect today's reality.

[DMX7]

Dat guy wouldn't last a day in today's Republican party.

[fraga]

This is nothing more than propaganda from the Left...

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL did you guys actually look at the census numbers he posted or just immediately jump into the daisy chain giving each other blow jobs and telling each other how smart you are while you licked the cum off your lips?

They clearly DID NOT show that 47% of households makes less than $27,000 a year.

For the record, BASED ON THE US TAX CODE a family of 4 with two children under the age of 17 making $50,000 a year pays no Federal income tax.

I am not saying they are rich by any means, just disproving the $27,000 number.

[clambake]

at least we know whats on cowboys mind.

[hater]

at least we know whats on cowboys mind.

well he was posting pictures of pre-pubescent boys in the other thread.

[CosmicCowboy]

well he was posting pictures of pre-pubescent boys in the other thread.

Don't be shy. We know it's you. You were really proud of it when you posted it the first time before you got laughed out of the forum.

[clambake]

pretty creepy that you kept that guys picture, tbh.

[CosmicCowboy]

pretty creepy that you kept that guys picture, tbh.

Actually, it was stored in my file at imageshack where I hosted it to post the first time, but I had a feeling that little faggot would surface again.

[hater]

I been on this forum for years genius.

That kid was probably 8 when I joined this forum. Keeping pics of 12 years olds, ya sick fuck

[CosmicCowboy]

I been on this forum for years genius.

That kid was probably 8 when I joined this forum. Keeping pics of 12 years olds, ya sick fuck

Well, if it's not you then you have the dubious honor of posting stupid shit just like that little faggot.

[DarrinS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986




The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly.

[Stringer_Bell]

^ point of clarification

If I read that right, it sounds like in 1986 the rich got their taxes almost cut in half and the poor got taxed more? Yes or no?

[Wild Cobra]

^ point of clarification

If I read that right, it sounds like in 1986 the rich got their taxes almost cut in half and the poor got taxed more? Yes or no?
The marginal rates were 14% to 70% in 1980, but went to 15% to 33% in 1988 with a special tax above the 33% rate.

In 1987 when the lowest marginal rate was 11%, the standard deduction was $2540 for someone single, and $3760 for a couple. Exemptions were already raised to $1900 from $1080 in 1996. In 1988 when the lowest marginal rate increased to 15%, the standard deduction raised to $3000 for the single person, $5000 for a couple, and exemptions went to $1950.

Think about this. You start paying 11% taxes in 1987 as a single person after you make $4440. In 1988, you start paying 15% taxes after you make $4950. Under the 11% rate, by the time you make $4950, you already paid $56, and are in the 15% marginal rate now.

Take a married person with two kids. 1987, standard deduction plus exemptions is $11,360 before starting to pay 11% in taxes of their money over that $11,360. In 1988, the 15%, SD, and 4 exemptions come in at $12,800 before starting in the 15% bracket. By the time the 1987 scale is considering an income of $12,800, they already paid $158, and moved into the 15% marginal rate.

You have to look at all this as a whole. Sticking with simple numbers can be deceiving. The 11% bracket didn't increase to 15%. It was eliminated. On top of that, lowest income wage earners had their taxes decreased.

How many deductibles from gross income were removed too? There were other changes you know. Here are some interesting reads:

Income Tax rates, 1986 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/86inintr.pdf)

Income Tax rates, 1987 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/87inintxr.pdf)

1980 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1980.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 44.

1981 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1981.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 40.

1982 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1982.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 40.

1983 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1983.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 41.

1984 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1984.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 42.

1985 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1985.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 43.

1986 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1986.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 43.

1987 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1987.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 47.

1988 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1988.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 51.

1989 form 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1989.pdf), Schedule X, Y, and Z on page 51.

[Wild Cobra]

Well Stinger...

Does it make sense now?

[Stringer_Bell]

You have to look at all this as a whole. Sticking with simple numbers can be deceiving. The 11% bracket didn't increase to 15%. It was eliminated. On top of that, lowest income wage earners had their taxes decreased.

Actually, that does clarify it...I wasn't registering the word "consolidated" properly. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, that does clarify it...I wasn't registering the word "consolidated" properly. :lol
Well, several brackets were 'consolidated" before the elimination of the 11% bracket. In 1986, the marginal rates were 11%, 12%, 14%, 15%, 16%, 18%, 20%, 23%, 26%, 30%, 34%, 38%, 42%, 48%, and 50%. In 1987 they were consolidated to 11%, 15%, 28%, 35%, and 38.5%. Then in 1988, the 11% was eliminated, and what was a 38.5% went to a special calculation.

[DMX7]

qM3cH9xiHMU

Out-of-Context!!! :cry

[Wild Cobra]

Conservatives also argued against closing tax loopholes for the richest Americans and for corporations.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/reagan-lauded-tax-law-dropping-poor-rolls-143904344.html
Socialist policies for the future.
Who are the conservatives not wanting to close loopholes?

Link please.

[ElNono]

Who are the conservatives not wanting to close loopholes?

Link please.

Link (http://www.house.gov/)

[Wild Cobra]

Link (http://www.house.gov/)
I didn't know that republicans were conservatives. Sure, some are, but that is not a proper answer to my question.

[ElNono]

I didn't know that republicans were conservatives.

That's what they run on.

[Wild Cobra]

That's what they run on.
I thought you know that the definition of "politician" was "professional liar."