It is absolutely factual, Reagan raised tax rates for the middle class and lowered tax rates for the top income class:
"KRUGMAN: I’m referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
For those who don’t want to do the math, Krugman’s “middle-income families with children” were paying a combined burden of 18.4 percent by 1988, up from 17.7 percent in 1980. For these middle-class families, Reagan—who did reduce taxes overall—had actually raised their tax burden."
Krugman offers a useful point, counteracting a decade of spinning
This was followed by W. cutting taxes, but cut more for the wealthy than the middle class.
"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times
Once again Cat, you hang your hat not on just someone that is wrong, but dismally so. Donald Luskin in the National Review had this to say about your liberal hero of economics...
"Most critiques of Krugman as a public intellectual begin with what is apparently an obligatory disclaimer, usually in the very first sentence — something to the effect that Krugman is a very accomplished and well-respected economist. Then comes the “But . . .” and the critique proceeds in earnest, often scathingly.
But why concede this honor to Krugman? So what if he won the Nobel Prize? The real test of Krugman’s mettle as an economist is the accuracy of his economic forecasting. The fact is that, with about three decades of evidence now in, Krugman’s track record, to use a technical term favored by economists, sucks."
Paul Krugman: The Prophet of Socialism - Donald Luskin - National Review Online
Although Krugman goes through stats during the Reagan era selectively choosing time frames to bolster his underlying theme, and cherry picking his dates. Krugman's goal is socialism. And he makes no bones about it. Wanna see how he does this? Let's go back to the NRO article we see an example from 2003....
"Concerning claims by the Bush administration for job creation as a result of its proposed tax cuts, Krugman wrote,
Krugman:
Let’s pretend that the Bush administration really thinks that its $726 billion tax-cut plan will create 1.4 million jobs. At what price would those jobs be created? . . . The average American worker earns only about $40,000 per year; why does the administration, even on its own estimates, need to offer $500,000 in tax cuts for each job created?
Sounds sensible if you read it fast — and pretty damning of Bush’s plan — especially if you assume you don’t have to question Krugman’s claims, since these words were written by a Princeton economist on the pages of the New York Times. But now: Stop, think, and question. That $726 billion number came from a report prepared by Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
The estimate of 1.4 million jobs created was just for the first single year of the tax cuts, 2004. Yet the $726 billion price tag was for ten years. In other words, Krugman was pushing the entire ten-year cost of the tax cut onto a single year of jobs creation."
Now the question Cat, do you have anyone credible on the economic impact?
This was followed by W. cutting taxes, but cut more for the wealthy than the middle class.
"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times
What a dumb ass article this is from the Times....We know that the seeds of class warfare have been long and deep from this hack biased outlet, but in their own article they can't get away from the facts...
"The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004.
The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.
By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed."
Welfare at its sneakiest....
Wealth has been getting more and more concentrated at the top over the last 3 decades. Most of us have noticed the pattern. Have you notice the 20 or so polls since January where a majority of Americans think the tax breaks for the rich should be eliminated? Have you noticed people protesting in the streets?
Is that really a surprise Cat? Ask each individual if you think their own tax should be raised and they will tell you 'No, they pay enough'.... But flip that question to do you think that taxes on "the rich" should be raised and resounding "Hell Yeah" will be the come back...Just another case of raise the other guy, but not mine.
Look, this narrative that the rich are getting richer is just plain wrong. Let's take a look at all socio-economic levels for the decades you want us to focus on and even at the lower levels of that, I think you'd find that the poor in this country has a standard of living that is greater than in decades past. And one that the world looks at as not poor at all.
Trickle down economics has been the policy the GOP has promoted for the last 30 years, and still promotes to this day, despite its failure! It worked well for those at the top but didn't trickle down to the middle class.
Yeah? well how is this class warfare working out for us? Business doesn't know what they'll be slapped with in terms of taxation, and regulation so they are on the sidelines squirreling their money away and not hiring....At least with 'supply side economics' created the greatest boom in hiring that lasted some 20 years...Socialism fails.
A third of the 47% are seniors, the remainder don't make enough money to pay a great deal in taxes. If you want them to pay more taxes, they will need to be paid a living wage for full time work, which most conservatives seemed to be opposed to.
Living wage is a unicorn that will never be the realm of normal thinking, or reality. You want to talk about the gap in what American goods cost as compared to our competitors across the world and wage disparity is one factor that would only get worse if you start increasing a minimum wage standard that already kills jobs.
You need to study history. Our tax system is now less progressive than it was under Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.
History is left to historians, and facts are facts. We have a progressive tax system in this country that has only served to stoke class warfare, jealousy, and division like the pap you rattle off in here Cat. If you want a true look at history, then rather than cherry pick items, and dates to fit your narrative of what happened like Krugman does, you have be honest about it. Which I don't hold much hope for. I am for a flatter, fairer tax system that leaves everyone with skin in the game to quote Biden. Funny how liberal fairness picks winners and losers.
j-mac
