Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: The Lowest Federal Tax Rate in 60 Years Says Reagan Advisor

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline

    The Lowest Federal Tax Rate in 60 Years Says Reagan Advisor

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-high-or-low/


    Low Federal Tax Rate Means Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars Lost Annually, Bartlett Says

    Posted: 05/31/11 04:56 PM ET

    Hearing some politicians talk about taxes, one might be convinced the United States has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

    But the reality is the federal tax rate, broadly measured, is the lowest it has been in 60 years, Bruce Bartlett writes in a new column. A look at the effective tax rate, which expresses taxes as a share of the country's economic output, belies the stream of political rhetoric arguing that taxes are relatively high, says Bartlett, who was a senior policy analyst under President Ronald Reagan.

    Federal taxes will be 14.8 percent of the nation's economic output this year, according to a recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. That's compared to a postwar annual average rate of 18.5 percent, Bartlett notes.
    Last edited by SiriusBuzz; 06-08-2011 at 03:19 PM. Reason: Removed full republication.

  2. #2
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    "And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains."

    That's because people like you can afford tax accountants to protect their wealth from taxation.

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    The Lowest Federal Tax Rate in 60 Years Says Reagan Advisor
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-high-or-low/

  4. #4
    Havakasha is offline
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_869922.html
    U.S. Corporations Paid Far Less Than Legally-Imposed Tax Rate: Study

    First Posted: 06/ 1/11 03:54 PM ET

    WASHINGTON (Kevin Drawbaugh) - Twelve big U.S. companies paid far less than the statutory corporate tax rate from 2008 to 2010, despite making substantial profits in that period, said a report released on Wednesday.

    With the Obama administration drafting a corporate tax reform plan, the report found General Electric Co, American Electric Power Co Inc, DuPont Co and nine other companies had a negative 1.5 percent tax rate on $171 billion in profits over the three years studied.
    Last edited by SiriusBuzz; 06-08-2011 at 03:19 PM. Reason: Removed full republication

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Yesterday Obama apparently told the Republican House Members who visited him something that they found completely incredulous, something clearly unbelievable and unfactual. Something that actually made their eyes roll as they discussed the issues of how to handle to hitting our national head on the ever impending debt ceiling.

    Republicans attending a White House meeting on Wednesday didn’t take kindly to President Obama telling them tax rates were higher during the Reagan administration. GOP members engaged in a lot of “eye-rolling,” according to a member who was on hand to hear Obama, who invited House Republicans to the White House for discussions on the debt ceiling. [...]
    “[The President] made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”

    Oh Silly Obama, he thinks we have low taxes. Ho HO. Yeah, well let me just go and disprove that by going to my favorite handy dandy right-wing adjacent Tea Party friendly deficit and spending site - USGovernmentRevenue.com.

    This should show him!



    Har dee har.. choke, uh... Oops!

    Well, gee according that chart Tax Revenues might be at their lowest point in 50 years. In fact 2011 tax revenues are at 28.65% of GDP, which is the lowest it's been since 1968 where they were 27.74% and Lindon Johnson was in Office. During the Reagan Era the rates were from 1980-1988:

    Year $Billion %GDP
    1980 2788.1 31.76 a
    1981 3126.8 32.48 a
    1982 3253.2 33.10 a
    1983 3534.6 31.23 a
    1984 3930.9 31.07 a
    1985 4217.5 31.95 a
    1986 4460.1 32.27 a
    1987 4736.4 33.40 a
    1988 5100.4 32.86 a

    Ok, so that's a bit of a FAIL.

    Thinkprogress has some of the reasons why...

    That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.
    For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

    Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance. And Reagan knew that taxes were an important part of the budget equation. After all, he “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.

  6. #6
    Havakasha is offline
    Although Reagan is known as a champion tax cutter, he in fact only cut taxes for the wealthiest citizens, while raising taxes on everyone else. Republicans like to say that Reagan tax cuts "increased revenue", but you can't make that claim without admitting that he also raised taxes in a variety of areas, including a signifigant increase in Social Security Taxes.

    Via Money.Cnn.com

    After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)
    So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

    "Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

    Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

    So for those who are saying we're Taxed Too Much or that the idea of raising taxes would either severely damage the economy or shock the conscience of a true Reaganite.

    Those would be, what's the word? Oh yes, LIES!
    Last edited by Havakasha; 06-02-2011 at 11:10 AM.

  7. #7
    Atypical is offline
    Reagan did raise revenue by increasing taxes and worked with Democrats to compromise (what a disgusting word that is to repukes) on other things. But of course, the myth continues.

    These a-holes with their dem enablers are disgusting.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    Reagan did raise revenue by increasing taxes and worked with Democrats to compromise (what a disgusting word that is to repukes) on other things. But of course, the myth continues.

    These a-holes with their dem enablers are disgusting.
    Yes, politics as a whole are indeed disgusting. Now here in Ann Arbor the totally democratic city council voted to ask their labor unions to cough up 20% of their medical benefits. In this case, now the left wants the left council people to be recalled for not being left enough. Funny, no? It's not; it's actually systemic. We cannot afford the governments we used to know without killing those of us without a tax accountant.

    Let's get back to taxes. Did you know that Bush collected more income tax revenue than Clinton? Hava-gafa-kasha thinks addition of tax receipts is funny math. Good one, no? This is from the guy who hires an accountant to cover his ass while POINTING out that certain "entities" should should pay more................... Yet they play the same game he does. Ain't it great? There's a word for that, but it is slipping my mind at the moment.

    This is the same guy who wants to end "oil subsides" when in truth, there is barely such thing. Oil companies enjoy writeoffs just like many other corporations and individuals - I mean, why the hell have a tax accountant????? Secondly, the amount of these deductions are truly small -- by most estimates, a days work based on current spending. But no. The Dems need to have hearings and bring the hot shot oil execs to Washington for drama. Then when the congress is in session, they have to introduce legislation SINGLING out "big oil". Add the news conferences for sound bites, and you truly find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy. Lastly, "big oil" pays a tremendous amount of taxes. I won't put a link here, but one can easily check out XOM's income statement. It's a fact.

    I digress........... back to taxes.

    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ses_98625.html

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    This needs more exposure.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Does anyone have any idea how much money S&L loses a year gambling on penny stocks?
    He might consider putting that money to better use by hiring an honest and competent tax accountant.

    Tax Preparation Prices and Fees
    What's a Reasonable Price to Pay for Preparing Tax Returns?
    By William Perez , About.com Guide

    Tax professionals use a variety of methods for setting prices for tax preparation services. As a result, finding out what's a fair price to pay often proves difficult. The only general conclusion I've come to is that the price for tax preparation services increases depending upon the complexity of the tax return.
    Pricing Methods Used by Tax Preparers

    Tax professional use a variety of different methods to set prices. In a study conducted by the National Association of Tax Professionals, pricing methods include:
    A set fee for each tax form or schedule,
    A fee based on last year's fee plus an additional fee for any changes in a client's tax situation,
    A minimum tax return fee, plus an additional fee based on the complexity of the client's situation,
    A value-based fee based on the subjective value of the tax preparation service,
    An hourly rate for time spent preparing the tax return, and
    A set fee for each item of data entry.
    Fee structures are decided by each firm. So if you are comparing different tax professionals, you'll want to ask how they determine their prices, and what they estimate your tax preparation service might cost. But because of per-item, per-form, or per-hourly rates, it might be impractical for an accountant to provide you with an accurate price quote. Accordingly, you'll want to ask accountants for a likely price range for your tax return.
    Average Prices for Tax Preparation Fees

    It's a bit easier to find average prices for tax preparation services. The National Society of Accountants in their 2010 fee study reports the following average prices charged by their members:
    Average for 1040 with Schedule A and state return: $229
    Average for 1040 with state return with no itemized deductions: $129
    Average Prices at Franchised Tax Offices

    H&R Block: $189 per return (average, 2010 data)
    Jackson Hewitt: $208 per return (average, 2010 data)
    Last edited by Havakasha; 06-03-2011 at 11:29 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •