I'm laughing my ass off at that one. It doesn't really matter that Arnie missed the 1986 to 1988 period in the tables. It is easy enough to do. (And that was the period of greatest reduction in the top bracket as well, though the 81 to 82 drop from 70 to 50% was almost as great as the 86 to 88 drop in the top bracket.) It seems it is more important to Arnie to show that I am wrong, which he is having a hard time doing, as you noted, than to try and understand the point of my post and respond to that. We have already settled the issue of who was correct about the rates, now we should move on to discussion of whether this rate compression in the Reagan era had anything to do with the income distribution skew we see today, and its affect on opportunity to advance up the economic ladder. I'd be happy to hear counter arguments from him. So far its just been nit picking about whether I was referring to the 1981 or the 1986 cuts, though it was clear enough from my post, once anyone looked carefully at Arnie's tables.
To be fair, I'd like to know what a single filer, earning minimum wage full-time, would have paid in income tax in 1981, and how much he or she would have paid for the same income in 1989. When Reagan took office, and when he left. At the end of the day that's what matters so far as Reagan is responsible.
I'd also like to know that, however, the minimum wage worker was probably not affected by the changes in tax rates taking place from 1981 to 1989. From 1981 to 1989 the minimum wage was held constant at 3.35/hr so a full time minimum wage worker would have earned around $6900 for a 40 hr week times 52 weeks. Chances are, after the exemption, standard deduction, any other deductions and social security plus medicare they would have virtually no taxable income so I don't think the Reagan tax revisions wouldn't have had much, if any, affect on the minimum wage worker. The main thing those workers would have noticed is that their pay checks didn't go nearly as far in 1989 as in 1981. The minimum wage was held constant throughout those years of fairly substantial inflation. One of the reasons given for holding the minimum wage constant was to help fight inflation. I could be a little sarcastic here and say "so what's new? Military wars have always been fought with the lower economic classes on the front lines, so why not put them on the front line in the fight against inflation?" Should we be, perhaps, more interested in the effect of Reaganomics on the lower middle class? I think if I could turn up data in terms of what was paid in income taxes in 1981 versus 1989 for those making just a few thousand dollars of taxable income we'd see quite a dramatic change from virtually no tax to some hundreds to a few thousand dollars. It must have been the lower middle class who really got hit hard by Reaganomics. Arnie is good at finding nice data, maybe he can unearth this information for us on the net.
Usually means to include more people in the population that pay taxes. What conservatives of whatever sort haven't figured out is that if you suppress wages, you reduce revenue, since people who aren't making anything don't pay income tax. Of course, if one wants to eliminate the government, there's no need for revenue.
Apparently, that whole "if you suppress wages, you reduce revenue" doesn't apply to the rich. Convenient!
Actually, it does. But the rich aren't going to starve or sleep on the street if their wages are suppressed.
You said "if you suppress wags, you reduce revenue." Revenue, meaning income to the Federal Government through tax. Or do you mean revenue to be people's income? Your doublespeak is often confusing.
Wow, what a total ass you are - disrupt the conversation just to point out a missing "e". Doing your absolute best to become universally loathed. I can just imagine what fun you are at parties.