It was the income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our inclusive and extensive middle class that has been eroded by the GOP tax cuts for the rich since Reagan. We did very well under highly progressive taxation.
It was the income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our inclusive and extensive middle class that has been eroded by the GOP tax cuts for the rich since Reagan. We did very well under highly progressive taxation.
False. Highly progressive taxation was ended by JFK/LBJ. They cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. The cut raised revenue and increased growth. When Reagan reduced income tax rates, it once again improved growth. Rates were tweaked multiple times during his two terms, both up and down, because Reagan was a tax optimizer, not a doctrinaire tax cutter. Reagan ultimately signed the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986, which is regarded by economists as a model of how to do tax reform.
Nope, true. Prior to the income tax and its high upper marginal rate the middle class was essentially those who could afford paid help in the home, rather small. However, after the income tax it grew tremendously to include no and low skilled workers.
We did very well under high upper marginal rates and 70% is still very high compared to that at Reagan, because it coerced the rich to invest in their businesses and workers rather than take themselves. Therefore, it has nothing to do with growth, as under low upper marginal rates profits flow to the capitalists, those who don't work, rather than the workers because they take the profits for themselves because a) the upper marginal rates don't penalize them for taking it and (b) the capital gains tax taxes working at a higher rate than not working.
All Reagan and subsequent GOP tax cuts did was increase the wealth gap, with more flowing to the top than the middle class.
It was the income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our inclusive and extensive middle class that has been eroded by the GOP tax cuts for the rich since Reagan. We did very well under highly progressive taxation.
False. Highly progressive taxation was ended by JFK/LBJ. They cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. The cut raised revenue and increased growth. When Reagan reduced income tax rates, it once again improved growth. Rates were tweaked multiple times during his two terms, both up and down, because Reagan was a tax optimizer, not a doctrinaire tax cutter. Reagan ultimately signed the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986, which is regarded by economists as a model of how to do tax reform.
Nope, true. Prior to the income tax and its high upper marginal rate the middle class was essentially those who could afford paid help in the home, rather small. However, after the income tax it grew tremendously to include no and low skilled workers.
We did very well under high upper marginal rates and 70% is still very high compared to that at Reagan, because it coerced the rich to invest in their businesses and workers rather than take themselves. Therefore, it has nothing to do with growth, as under low upper marginal rates profits flow to the capitalists, those who don't work, rather than the workers because they take the profits for themselves because a) the upper marginal rates don't penalize them for taking it and (b) the capital gains tax taxes working at a higher rate than not working.
All Reagan and subsequent GOP tax cuts did was increase the wealth gap, with more flowing to the top than the middle class.