AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (44 comments)

  1. Where’s my man LarryG on this one? Was this the point you were trying to make.

  2. there is NO competitive “advantage” when you irresponsibly implement a tax policy that starves the beast and sends the country into deficit and debt.

    Reagan cut taxes but he also raised them when he saw the budget going into deficit.

    the folks who cite Reagan ignore the second part.

    1. It is much more example to build a beast so large that no amount of food will satiate it. The levels of revenue necessary to pay for the Government we have and Liberals want (minus the Military) is only possible at continuous high growth rates which is never going to happen even if we cut back all the Obama and Bush regulations and return back to the Clinton years.

      Some of Europe realized this and started making amends to their welfare-states.

      1. are tax revenues are 1.5 Trillion. right?

        1. Robert B.

          Morelike $2.1 Trillion. In 2007 it was $2.57 Trillion.

          The total gross income of the top 1% of Income Earners is about $1.3 Trillion.

          Our current deficit for Fiscal Year 2012 was estimated at $1.1 Trillion.

          $16+ Trillion in debt.

          Any more questions?

      2. I’m thinking maybe going back to the Eisenhower/Kennedy years before the onset of the massive entitlement programs and bureaucracy build that started with LBJ…

      3. John Engelman

        There is little support for specific cuts in government spending.

        http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1389/Default.aspx

        and considerable support for higher taxes on the rich.

        https://www.google.com/#q=poll+%2B+taxes+%2B+rich

  3. http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

    “When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

    Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

    Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.

    The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.”

    1. Bruce Bartlett tends to be the lefties ‘go to guy‘ for the Reagan tax increases…

      1. re: “Reagan calls tax boost “the price we had to pay”

        http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19820805&id=GqIrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lfwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6919,945985

        poor little Reagan – the tax-cutting, supply-side hero of the right – KNEW ahead of time that he could not get a deal without a tax hike – as opposed to him being “surprised”.

        Besides.. isn’t the claim that tax revenues went up?

        sure enough:

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

        1. larry g babbles: “poor little Reagan“…

          You should be so poor numb_nutz…

        2. Robert B.

          I thought eliminating deduction wasn’t a big deal? Or is that only because Romney was arguing that it was?

          Anyways, you’re trolling a little excessively and unfortunately missing the mark. Pretending that Reagan increased taxes significantly should be beneath anyone trying to have a serious conversation.

          1. re: eliminating deductions – is a good thing unless of course you use the savings to lower the marginal rate and the net effect is revenue neutral and the budget deficit is unaffected.

            Reagan used the increased revenues to buy down the deficit, as a principled fiscal conservative would.

            Romney appeared to be claiming that a revenue-neutral tax reform would spur “growth”.

            never understand that… since lowering the marginal rate was achieved by tax increases on those who previously benefited for tax loopholes.

            how was that supposed to work?

  4. Hey Larry – Reagan cut a deal to raise taxes in return for some spending cuts because the defecit was not caused by tax rate cuts, it was caused by an explosion in spending. Alas, the cuts never came. Sound familiar? Just what Obama wants now – raise taxes and cut later. The official flag and mascot of the dems should be changed to a picture of Lucy VanPelt holding the football. Unfortunately the dumb republicans, just like Charlie Brown, will probably end up on their backs again listening to a lecture from Lucy.

    1. re: increases in spending.

      Reagan would have had to sign them right?

      and when he did sign them he had the backbone to arrange for payment, right?

      that’s responsible fiscal conservatism.

      1. Nice try – you don’t remember the press conference where he took the passed budget, a half-ton tome, and dropped it on the podium and told the American people that he had to sign the whole thing or shut down the government. He tried to get the line-item veto but was shut down by political hacks.

        You’re showing yourself to not really know much at all about the Reagan years. As I said before, he made the arrangements to ‘pay’ for it by making a deal with Tip and the dems to get cuts along with those tax increases. The dems lied and never implemented the cuts.

        Go to the back of the class.

  5. Todd Mason

    The top marginal income tax rate in China is 45 percent. The corporate rate is 25 percent. China has some taxes that can be called confiscatory, such as the top rate of 60 percent on raw land appreciation. (China ramped up real estate taxes to nosebleed levels to pierce its real estate bubble. China pretty much scoffs at the notion that we have anything to teach them about economics.)

    The real estate crackdown has lowered 2012 GDP growth to 7.5 percent.

    Yes, comparing emerging economies to mature ones is apples and oranges. Right, Mr, P? Taxes are one factor among many, and not the important one at the moment in China or the US. What China has that America lacks is DEMAND.

  6. MacDaddyWatch

    And more recently…

    Since the respective recoveries began, Reagan policies generated near 6% GDP growth versus Obama’s 2% for the comparable period. 1984 saw GDP surge 7%, twice Obma’s single best quarter. In addition to some tax cuts, Reagan rolled back many expensive, unnecessary and hostile regulations–Obama created them at a record pace. Reahgan launched this success from an economic terrain that included 21% interest rates versus 0% today. He launched from an environment that vaporized the S&L industry versus the bailout cadavers that exist today. Reagan accomplished all this success without plssing away $5.5 trillion taxpayer dollars.

    Can you imagine what today’s unemployment rate might be if Obama inherited 21% interest rates and double-digit inflation? 25%…30%? Maybe more.

    1. Robert B.

      Are you implying that the Stimulus didn’t work?

      1. Aren’t there tens of thousands of ‘shovel ready jobs‘ just everywhere you look?

        1. locally, we have more than 60 million dollars in road projects that were previously cancelled until the stimulus was enacted.

          1. locally, we have more than 60 million dollars in road projects that were previously cancelled until the stimulus was enacted“…

            Well good deal larry g, now you have somewhere you can go play…

        2. Robert B.

          I saw a bunch of signs that said there were.

          1. I saw a bunch of signs that said there were“…

            Yeah robert but I didn’t happen to catch anyone with a shovel in his/her hand, did you?

    2. Todd Mason

      Umm, the thrift crisis happenedd on Reagan’s watch although both parties pretended it didn’t exist in the 88 election. In his 1993 book, Full Faith and Credit, Bill Seidman, head of the cleanup RTC, blamed Don Regan, Reagan’s treas secy and chief of staff, for clinging to antiregulation dogma in the face of considerable evidence that allowing builders to run thrifts was in fact as dumb as it sounds.

      Nor are the recoveries comparable. Reagan’s problems lasted as long as it took Volcker to dampen inflation expectations, after which interest rates fell and life resumed. Burnt creditors and debtors tend to have longer memories, as evidenced by the fact that four years of negative interest rates by the Fed have done little.

      1. Che is dead

        Hmmm, the “thrift crisis”. Remind us all again, wasn’t that solved by a trillion dollar plus “stimulus” package and over 6 trillion dollars of deficit spending? Or, am I thinking about another crisis?

      2. Che is dead

        Here is the New York Times write up on the “thrift crisis”:

        Who to Thank for the Thrift Crisis, New York Times, June 12, 1988

        Scanning the article, I don’t see the name Ronald Reagan, or Donald Reagan mentioned even once. Go figure. There is this, however:

        “Although some candid lawmakers blame themselves for insufficient action in the late 1970’s and 80’s, some analysts believe the roots of the crisis lie deep in the structure of the industry, established by Congress in 1932.”

        I think that Bill Seidman was a brilliant guy, but when you cant even get the New York Times to throw a little mud Ronald Reagan’s way, well, …

  7. Just kidding larry g about where to play…

    Stay out of the roadways…

  8. John Engelman

    James Pethokoukis makes no mention of the fact that the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan.

    It was not supposed to be this way. In his 1980 debate with President Carter Reagan said: “I have submitted an economic plan that I have worked out in concert with a number of fine economists in this country, all of whom approve it, and believe that over a five year projection, this plan can permit the extra spending for needed refurbishing of our defensive posture, that it can provide for a balanced budget by 1983 if not earlier, and that we can afford – along with the cuts that I have proposed in Government. spending – we can afford the tax cuts.”

    Reagan said nothing of the cuts in popular domestic spending programs that would have been necessary to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983.

    The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan has been to convince most Republicans that they can have the government they want without paying for it.

    1. James Pethokoukis makes no mention of the fact that the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan“…

      Notably you make no mention that much of that supposed tripling of the national debt was due in large part to the ‘pandering to parasites programs‘ under the guise called entitlements, a constitutionally questionable scam of wealth transfer via the federal extortion system or as its also known, the IRS…

      1. John Engelman

        By ‘pandering to parasites programs‘ you of course mean not cutting Social Security and Medicare payments.

        President Reagan had plenty of opportunities to tell beneficiaries of these programs that they were parasites. He chose not to.

        If during the 1980 presidential campaign he made it clear that he shared your contempt for those who receive Social Security and Medicare payments he would have lost in a landslide to Jimmy Carter.

        1. By ‘pandering to parasites programs‘ you of course mean not cutting Social Security and Medicare payments“….

          Why yes I do…

          President Reagan had plenty of opportunities to tell beneficiaries of these programs that they were parasites. He chose not to“…

          I found him to be an absolute disappointment…

          If during the 1980 presidential campaign he made it clear that he shared your contempt for those who receive Social Security and Medicare payments he would have lost in a landslide to Jimmy Carter“…

          Thanks for reenforcing my opinion that the average American voter is pathetically ignornant of the Constitution…

          1. John Engelman

            Thanks for reenforcing (sic) my opinion that the average American voter is pathetically ignornant (sic) of the Constitution.

            – juandos

            NEW YORK , N.Y. – March 4, 2014 – A new Harris Poll finds that large majorities of the public continue to be supportive of many key government services…

            The most popular services and programs, supported by 80% or more of the American public, are Medicare (with 90% supporting it either a great deal or somewhat), crime-fighting and prevention (89%), Social Security (also 89%).
            http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1389/Default.aspx

            juandos,

            Do me a favor. Run for office. Tell the voters that Social Security is unconstitutional. See just how badly you lose.

            I wish that in 1980 you had been writing campaign speeches for Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter would have won big time.

            Just out of curiosity, where does the Constitution prohibit Social Security?

          2. The most popular services and programs, supported by 80% or more of the American public, are Medicare (with 90% supporting it either a great deal or somewhat), crime-fighting and prevention (89%), Social Security (also 89%)“…

            So john thanks for proving that a fairly sizable number of citizens (ha! ha!) are not merely abysmally ignorant of what’s in the constitution but they also don’t have any problem stealing other people’s money to finance the federal wish list…

            Good stuff john and I can you’re right there with those parasites…

            I wish that in 1980 you had been writing campaign speeches for Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter would have won big time“…

            Interesting but not surprising you have a soft spot for the seditious yet thoroughly incompetent clown Carter…

          3. John Engelman

            You still have not explained how Social Security is unconstitutional. Have you even read the United States Constitution?

            Also, before you complain “that the average American voter is pathetically ignornant (sic) of the Constitution,” do not be so ignorant of the spelling of “ignorant.”

          4. You still have not explained how Social Security is unconstitutional. Have you even read the United States Constitution?“…

            Apparently you haven’t read the constitution either..

            Show where its legal for the federal government to extort money from one group of people in order to give it to another group of people…

            Here, do some homework: The Roots of the Social Security Myth

            do not be so ignorant of the spelling of “ignorant.”“…

            I only spell it that way when I deal with the ignorant…

          5. John Engelman

            I asked you first. Show me where the United States Constitution forbids Social Security.

            Whenever someone gives me something to read I know I have won the argument.

            If you actually read “The Roots of the Social Security Myth,” and if you understood it, explain it in your own words.

  9. Now some people, like Business Insider’s Henry Blodget, and former White House economist Jared Bernstein, thinks the data make the case for tax hikes“…

    What do you bet that neither of these jerk wads has voluntarily sent more money to the Treasury Dept?

  10. I asked you first. Show me where the United States Constitution forbids Social Security“…

    I gave you exactly what you needed with that link but apparently you didn’t or wouldn’t read it or maybe you just were having very, very tough time comprenhending it…

    Whenever someone gives me something to read I know I have won the argumen“…

    Wrong again, it means that your knowledge of the constitution is at best questionable…

    The fact that you aren’t smart enough to understand that simple document that explains everything you need to understand why the federal government is committing theft with the Ponzi scamm called socialist security speak volumes about both your education and your reading abilities…

    So if you really want to know where it all starts then begin with Article One Section 8 of the US Constitution or any part of article one and see if there was any allusion to the socialist security Ponzi scheme

    1. John Engelman

      United States Constitution

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

      Article. I.

      Section. 8.

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

      ——-

      Notice what it says about “general Welfare.” That is an explicit authorization of the welfare state.

      1. Now john did you see anywhere in Article One anything at all that says its OK for the fed to run a Ponzi scheme on its citizens?

        Its a simple with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer…

        BTW if you had read the contents of that first link I passed your way you would’ve seen that the social security was NOT being sold as a tax increase…

        Notice what it says about “general Welfare.” That is an explicit authorization of the welfare state“…

        Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

        Pathetic try biatch, Brush up on your Madison

      2. Quoted from Wikipedia:

        The United States Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare”, one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”[2][3]

        Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story’s view as the “Hamiltonian position”,[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position’s initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]

        As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[12]

        2. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”).
        3. Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 53.
        4. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65–68 (1936).
        5. Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 161–64.
        6. Story, Commentaries, §919. “A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.”
        7. Story, Commentaries, §909. Here Story disproves the Madisonian position holding the clause being a prelude to the subsequent enumeration of powers, stating “the words have a natural and appropriate meaning, as a qualification on the preceding clause to lay taxes.”
        8. Story, Commentaries, §§919–24.
        9. Story, Commentaries, §§972–75.
        10. Story, Joseph (1833). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States II. Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co. pp. 366–458.
        11. Story, Commentaries, §§923–24, and footnotes.
        12. Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 161. “The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.”

  11. John Engelman

    Reagan’s tax cuts are the reason for the increase in the national debt since 1980.

    1. This explanation is far too simplistic as to explain “THE REASON for the increase in the nation debt since 1980″. Especially considering that the tax cuts resulted in more revenue for the state in many cases, not less. Even if you can find some examples where the tax cuts resulted in less revenue and you would like to believe that is PART of the reason for the increase, the simplest explanation for the increase in national debt is that we did not stop spending. I believe that every president and every congressman would be able to come up with many justifications for why they HAD to spend during their time in office, but the simple truth is that we spent more than we brought in over and over and over again. It doesn’t take a genius or any amount of deep thought to conclude that is the biggest reason the national debt is where it is now.

      In summary: The national debt increased because regardless of how much money we brought in via taxation, we spent too much.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content