If you were to ask any financial expert whether or not you need to check you credit report, chances are they will tell you it is essential information to check up on at least once a year. The average person, however, has never checked their score and i...

And we all know what you're shoveling. You dishonestly portyayed Reagan's efforts to decrease taxes, made up hypothetical and imaginary situations to insinuate Obama's tax rates will be more beneficial to the poor and invented from whole cloth that the protests had anything to do with the fair tax movement.

And then you mention yet another grievance you have in common with the protestors you slandered, again showing that you care more about partisan sniping than in honest discourse.

Stop digging.

Um, both the FICA rate and the bottom income tax rate were higher than they were pre-1986.

I apologize for being cryptic. If you pay 2-3% more FICA, but no income tax at all, you pay less tax. Prior to TEFRA, if your taxable income was less than $3k you paid no tax. You paid 10% on 3 to I forget what. After, if you had taxable income at all, you paid 11%. You also paid more FICA.

However, those 4 million people brainy mentions were no longer paying income tax at all, so the lowest paid worker traded a bump in FICA for a complete elimination of an 11% income tax. More take-home pay. And I reiterate, that rate wasn't the working poor. That was part-time minimum wage.

The broken link is to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf. Enjoy it in good health.

Sigh. Alex, click through on that IRS link above. Yes, it did come with a decrease in the corporate tax rates.

Phil - your link is broken. If the rates did go down, that's my bad.

Which was greater after TEFRA, Alex - the bottom income tax rate, or the FICA rate? Take your time.

Um, both the FICA rate and the bottom income tax rate were higher than they were pre-1986.

Brainy,

"In Reagan's day" implies taxes that were a result of his policies

You mean you're now claiming that he wasn't responsible for the cut from 70 to 50 now?

All your middle blather still does not show that any people paid more taxes under Reagan than they stand to under Obama.

What I'm saying is that two people in the same income tax brackets would have a higher burden during the bulk of Reagan's presidency than they would have under Obama's proposed tax plan. That's it.

Especially the nonsense about FICA, which is meant to be paid back through Social Security.

Umm... all taxes are paid back in some form or another...

Oh. My. God. Obama keeps trying to raise all our taxes!! Alex said so!

If the bill comes without a commiserrate tax rate decrease, then yes, that is a de facto tax increase.

Great argument about the fair tax. I've seen it promoted in comments on this site before, so according to your logic OTB must be promoting the fair tax as well. Yes that's a stupid accusation, which is the whole point.

Hey, that's the predominant tax plan I've seen promoted by prominent tea party supporting bloggers. If you have an alternative that actually simplifies taxes while not increasing tax burdens on the poor, I'd definitely be interested. I'm certianly more interested in ideas than I am childish insults.

And what part of the taxes you mentioned contibute to the general welfare of the federal government? FICA is designed to come back to you

In theory, yes, but de facto FICA money goes into the general revenue as long as Medicare and Social Security are running a surplus, which they currently are.

Thats leaves excise taxes, which are a flat tax paid by everyone, usually unknown to the majority of people.

That doesn't mean that they don't pay taxes. Plus, the poor pay taxes in the form of higher prices as a consequence of corporate taxes. (If it were up to me, there would be no corporate taxes.)

Please refer to the first rule of holes if you wish to continue your "arguments."

The first rule of holes is that we do not talk about holes.

All your middle blather still does not show that any people paid more taxes under Reagan than they stand to under Obama. Especially the nonsense about FICA, which is meant to be paid back through Social Security.

Oh. My. God. Obama keeps trying to raise all our taxes!! Alex said so!
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=269479

Great argument about the fair tax. I've seen it promoted in comments on this site before, so according to your logic OTB must be promoting the fair tax as well. Yes that's a stupid accusation, which is the whole point.

And what part of the taxes you mentioned contibute to the general welfare of the federal government? FICA is designed to come back to you, sales and property taxes are local. Thats leaves excise taxes, which are a flat tax paid by everyone, usually unknown to the majority of people. Doesn't exactly give buy-in like having to type out exactly how much money you give to the federal government each year.

Please refer to the first rule of holes if you wish to continue your "arguments."

Because it didn't come with a decrease in the rate

Sigh. Alex, click through on that IRS link above. Yes, it did come with a decrease in the corporate tax rates.

Those people still paid FICA taxes, and Reagan increased FICA taxes.

Which was greater after TEFRA, Alex - the bottom income tax rate, or the FICA rate? Take your time.

I give up. You've made up your mind in the absence of data, and no amount of historical data is going to change it.

I said "A modest tax increase that still keeps taxes lower than they were in Reagan’s day?"

This is, by and large, true. For six years of the Reagan Administration, taxes were higher than what Obama currently proposes. Period.

Ok. But then you seize on EITC like a rabid dog because you can feverishly dismiss it with your irrelevant statistics. People taxing themselves through their ignorance isn't the same as an imposed tax.

It is if it's systemic and no efforts are taken by the government to remedy the situation.

BUT you dismiss the other factors I also brought up, "President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction,"

Yes, but that was to offset the fact that the consumer loan interest deduction was eliminated--revenue neutral for most households.

he removed 4 million people from the tax rolls entirely

Those people still paid FICA taxes, and Reagan increased FICA taxes.

Wait, are you actually arguing that closing tax loopholes is a tax increase on businesses? Really?

It's a de facto increase, yes. And those costs were passed on to consumers. The closing of the loophole should have come along with a decreased tax rate, but it didn't.

After all your bluster about the rich being able to pay lass taxes because they can afford tax preparers you want to fault Regan for closing off a loophole where people who can afford to buy property solely to shelter their money from taxes?

Because it didn't come with a decrease in the rate, yes, because the taxes were largely paid by businesses who passed the increased costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices--a de facto shift of tax burden to the poor and middle class.

I'd really like to see where any protestor has called for raising taxes on the poor

The "Fair Tax", which I understand is the predominant favorite "simplification" measure, does just that, in fact.

unless you are referring to people who want to make sure everyone pays SOME tax to keep the tied into the system.

No, I refer to those people who propose a "fair" tax that decreases the tax burden on the rich while raising it on the poor.

Remember, even people who are exempt from paying income taxes still pay FICA taxes, as well as sales taxes, property taxes (either directly or as a portion of rent), and federal excise taxes.

those that don’t file at all, either because they are afraid to file or because they have no tax liability and are not aware that EITC is refundable even if they have no tax liability.

Granted, if they're entitled, they're entitled. However, in this instance, your point about TEFRA creating an effective tax hike is obviously false, since "no tax liability" means they ain't paying taxes. "Afraid to file" almost certainly means that they're illegal, or have illegal sources of income. I'm not going to get exercised about either group, frankly.

As for corporate income - well, if the best you can come up with is that Reagan eliminated some passive income shelters - well, let's just say that it's a far cry from "raising corporate taxes" as you claimed previously.

All in all, at least you made an effort. You're a country mile away from establishing any point about taxes not really going down after 86; you're still flogging a fundamentally misleading and dishonest point about the tax code that he inherited and eventually succeeded in changing; you're wildly off the mark by claiming that today's tax code is "byzantine" on the one hand, and failing to recognize how vastly more complicated and wealthy-favoring the tax code was prior to that (we haven't begun to talk about endowment contracts - what an unbelievable shelter they were).

And finally, it still entirely misses the point. I've wasted entirely too much time on this topic today, but anyone who thinks we can maintain and even increase spending as Obama has outlined our way forward, and not see significant rises in income tax or other taxes, is nothing better than a fool. Or a thoroughly dishonest partisan hack who thinks everyone else is a fool. And believe me, Alex, when Obama goes about raising taxes on corporations, eliminating deductions, implementing cap-and-trade, and otherwise increasing the cost of doing business, I'm going to remind you time and time again that you did your dead-level best to paint Reagan as effectively raising taxes on the poor by eliminating the passive income shelters that existed prior to 86.

Then you finally get around to admitting that Regan’s 87 tax cuts lowered them below Obama’s proposed rates AND THEN LOWERED THEM FURTHER in 88. So, you lied and you kinda admit it. Ok. But then you seize on EITC like a rabid dog because you can feverishly dismiss it with your irrelevant statistics. People taxing themselves through their ignorance isn't the same as an imposed tax. Everyone who uses the exemption method of paying tax taxes themselves by the amount that withheld money would have accrued interest, but they can opt out of that system, just like they can actually read the tax code and discover what they are paying and how to get their money back. Stupid argument.

BUT you dismiss the other factors I also brought up, "President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction," and that he removed 4 million people from the tax rolls entirely. How the hell can someone remove a person from the tax rolls AND raise their taxes? It's bad enough to cherry pick facts to mold to your argument, but pathetic to double down on it after being called out for it. Or are the American people too dumb to figure those out, too?

And this talk of "raising taxes" is bull as well. Regan eliminated a tax bracket that only went up to 3k a year. As shown previously he also removed 4 million people from the tax rolls. Are you claiming that people making less than 3k a year weren't the people removed from the tax rolls? With a straight face? Phil already tried to set you straight on that point, so I guess this is more doubling down on your dishonest assertations.

Wait, are you actually arguing that closing tax loopholes is a tax increase on businesses? Really? After all your bluster about the rich being able to pay lass taxes because they can afford tax preparers you want to fault Regan for closing off a loophole where people who can afford to buy property solely to shelter their money from taxes? So not only are you dishonest, you are incoherent as well.

I'd really like to see where any protestor has called for raising taxes on the poor... unless you are referring to people who want to make sure everyone pays SOME tax to keep the tied into the system. If you can't show that, then you just said that you support the protests, and at the end of a post slandering them. My, my.

So.... your argument, such as it is, was first taxes were higher under Regan, then after we all stopped laughing you switched to PARTS of the tax code were higher for poor people, and now that that fallacy has been exposed your contention is that ok, yes, Regan cut taxes, but it doesn't count because the tax code is too hard? How pathetic.

Under Reagan, the top marginal rate was 50% until 1986. So yeah, for six years under Reagan, tax rates were higher than Obama's proposals.

In 1987, while the top marginal rate fell as a result of the 1986 tax reform act, the top rate was still 38.5%--just 1.1% lower than Obama's current proposal. Then in 1988, the top marginal rate fell to 28%.

However, after the Tax Reform Act, the bottom marginal rate increased. This was theoretically offset by the EITC, but as I mentioned, somewhere between 15-25% of those eligible for EITC don't know to file for it, so it goes unclaimed, resulting in a de facto tax burden.

Additionally, some of the middle income brackets also saw a tax hike. For example, in 1986, incomes in the middle brackets had a marginal rate lower than what those same incomes paid in 1987. That was a temporary effect in 1987 only, though--not permanent like I previously stated, which was my mistake.

However, it is important to note that the revenue earned by lowering the rates was offset by increasing the corporate tax burden. Not by raising rates, but rather by eliminating tax shelters on passive income. But as corporate taxation tends to get passed on to consumers in the form of price increases, that becomes a de facto burden. I suppose one could argue that it's still relatively neutral relative to the income tax decreases--I don't have numbers on the 1986 Act specifically. But I would note that corporate and other business taxes tend to be regressive, which means again a higher tax burden on the poor.

And all of this without ANYTHING to back up your sad-sack accusations.

Note links above--esp. regarding marginal tax rates.

For extra irony, a very large percentage of Tea Party protestors would like to see the tax code vastly simplified.

They want it simplified but regressive, resulting in tax hikes for the poor and middle class and lower taxes for the wealthy. I'm good with simplification. The tax code is nuts. Let's start by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and I'm there. But I am very, very opposed to raising taxes on the poor as long as we have a regulatory climate that favors big corporations and lifetime employment over small business, entrepeneurship, and self-employment.

Phil -- I trust that the above answers your concerns as well.

The fact of the matter is, through a bunch of handwaving accounting tricks, the 1986 Act made it look like lower taxes for all on paper, but in terms of actual tax burden, it was regressive and increased the burden on the poor and middle class through a reliance on the EITC and a hike in corporate taxes.

You're just not going to provide any actual data to back up your assertions, are you?

All the handwaving I'm seeing is coming from you. And even if we accept your bald assertions as accurate in the absence of any evidence other than your assertion, you still haven't accounted for the quite simple fact that the tax rates decreased for nearly everyone, contra your prior assertion, as I've already demonstrated.

And besides, claiming that qualifying for the EITC requires some sort of arcane accounting knowledge is just gibberish. If you can answer questions like "how many children live in your household?" and "how much money did you make?", and do some simple arithmetic, you can see if you qualify.

As for the claim that the corporate income tax rates increased - well, that is yet more moonshine. According to the IRS, corporate income tax rates went down in 82, 83, had a strange blip in 84-86 where they went up 5% between 1m and 1.4m, and then - whaddaya know - went down in 87 and again in 88.

Come on, Alex. Either present some data, or just admit you may have been mis-informed and let it go. Your argumentation up to now is . . . unbecoming.

And all of this without ANYTHING to back up your sad-sack accusations. How typically liberal.

For extra irony, a very large percentage of Tea Party protestors would like to see the tax code vastly simplified. Just look at Glen Renyolds site to see that that is true. So if you were the kind of person who took positions based on rational thought or principle instead of blind partisanship you'd actually be praising the protests instead of slandering them.

The whole POINT of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was to offset decline in revenue from cutting the top marginal rate by increasing corporate taxes. And coporate taxes, like all business and sales taxes, tend to affect the population in regressive ways. Higher corporate taxes mean higher prices, the burden for which tends to be disproportionately borne by the poor.

Also, as a matter of de facto rather than de jure, something like 25% of people who should receive the EITC don't because they don't know how to file for it. So while on paper their tax burden is less, the reality is that it is not.

Our byzantine tax system makes it easy to decrease your tax burden if you're well educated or well off enough to hire someone to do your taxes for you. It's not quite so easy to navigate for single moms who are working two jobs.

The fact of the matter is, through a bunch of handwaving accounting tricks, the 1986 Act made it look like lower taxes for all on paper, but in terms of actual tax burden, it was regressive and increased the burden on the poor and middle class through a reliance on the EITC and a hike in corporate taxes.

I will grant, though, that if you were well-off and could afford an accountant, your tax burden was lowered under Reagan.

All this outrage of course ignores the status of those people. They're not part of a recognized army, and are in fact terrorists.

Yeah, like Padilla, that foreign terrorist picked up in afghanistan...

what? He was an american citizen? And he was arrested on American soil?

Well okay then but he didn't deserve his constitutional rights to habeus corpus and a speedy trial because... um... huh.

Bugger.

According to that site, the total debt has gone up rougly 1.1 trillion since September (through March). 500 billion of that since January. The evidence just keeps mounting - taxes are going up.