Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
When will Reagan's "trickle down" start trickling?
The middle and lower class has been losing ground since the 80's.. So far only two things seem to trickle down, water and "used water"..
"You know, repeating that often enough isn't going to make it true. Take a look at the mean household income over the past 30 years.". Ah-huh, and LOOK AT THE WIDENING DIFFERENCE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS BETWEEN THE TOP 1% AND THE REST! Do you not get it?!
"The measure cut all income tax rates by twenty-five percent, with a 5 percent cut coming that October, the next 10 percent in July 1982, and the final 10 percent in July 1983. The law also reduced the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, indexed tax rates to offset the impact of inflation, and increased the tax exemption on estates and gifts. Conservatives have consistently argued that ERTA was a prime factor in the economic growth that prevailed throughout the 1980s.
In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%."... Really? Gee, a. You may have forgotten or B. be too young to remember, or C. be (intentionally or unintentionally) "revising history" to support your belief.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the ra
rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
See the "non liberal": http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=48...
"The trickle down happened during the golden Clinton years. Most families didn't have computers in the 80s. Isn't a decade the time frame democrats are giving Obama's policies to have an effect? The good economy in Clinton's term was obviously the result of Reagan's policies.".
So, if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then you disagree with the Republicans who are trying to blame Obama for the current financial situation and believe that it is really Bush that got us into this mess. Correct?
11 Answers
- Anonymous9 years ago
Reagan moved more people out of poverty than any president in history.
The measure cut all income tax rates by twenty-five percent, with a 5 percent cut coming that October, the next 10 percent in July 1982, and the final 10 percent in July 1983. The law also reduced the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, indexed tax rates to offset the impact of inflation, and increased the tax exemption on estates and gifts. Conservatives have consistently argued that ERTA was a prime factor in the economic growth that prevailed throughout the 1980s.
There followed sixty straight months of economic growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since the government began keeping such statistics in 1854. Nearly fifteen million new jobs were created -- a total of eighteen million by the time Reagan left office. Just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services, measured in actual dollars, were produced from 1982 to 1987. To give some notion of how much that is, by the end of 1987 America was producing about seven and a one-half times more every year than it produced in John Kennedy's last year as president.[viii]
The expansion was felt everywhere, as conservative economists had predicted, including in the government's own income. Total federal receipts in 1982 were $618 billion. Five years later, federal receipts were just over $1 trillion, an increase of $398 billion. More than enough, one would have thought, to satisfy all but the most eager advocate of the welfare state.
Source(s): You probably lost your facts along the way. - ahandle101Lv 79 years ago
The trickle down happened during the golden Clinton years. Most families didn't have computers in the 80s. Isn't a decade the time frame democrats are giving Obama's policies to have an effect? The good economy in Clinton's term was obviously the result of Reagan's policies.
- ?Lv 45 years ago
there is not any such situation as "trickle down" economics or "trickle up" economics. there is purely economics and it purely works a million way. money is accrued in a single place, and then redistributed to others. to illustrate: an company accumulates money by merchandising products or centers and then redistributes it to workers. the only question is: who accumulates the money, and who controls the way it incredibly is redistributed? determination a million is the internal maximum sector, like the occasion of the corporate I purely gave. determination 2 is the government, the place money is accrued by taxation, and then redistributed. the two way that's the right comparable situation, the only distinction is who's in value and the outcomes.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Sigh,
Poverty was dramatically reduced in the 80s. The unemployment rate went way down. However, the gap between rich an poor did widen during those years. The left says it wasn't worth it if it was going to cause the gap to get that wide.
- ?Lv 79 years ago
You know, repeating that often enough isn't going to make it true. Take a look at the mean household income over the past 30 years.
Edit: Medial personal income by education, adjusted for inflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_media...
Looks pretty level to me, and all major groups have taken a hit since about 2007.
- 9 years ago
Guess you weren't a home owner in the 80's. Things were better then than they are now.
- ?Lv 59 years ago
The rich will "trickle down" their wealth when they're good and ready. I know, you've been waiting for 30 years, but just be patient, and the gold will come pouring down on you.
- Anonymous9 years ago
To the rat: then why are his stylized faith-based economic policies still in action? DUMB RAT
