Why do people think that Reagan's low Tax's policys worked?

Because they've never taken the time to actually research it.

It did not work.

Reganomics was the beginning of the end for America's finances.

You memory of Reagan was not how I remeber it. When he took over Intrest rates and unemployment were in double digits We were in the hieght of the cold war. In four years he got intrest rates inflation and unemployment down to single digits. Inproved out defense without starting any new wars and eased tensions with russia. And all the above improved the next four years. Everyone in both partys backed him when he made desicions and the country was the most united it had been since jfk. The only thing reagan realy did wrong was increase the debt(but no president since has try to fix that so...)

Reagan's theory was working, it was Clinton that started to abuse the reserves and we all know what happened after that, then Bush came in wanted a piece of the pie and we lost even more integrity of the budget. Now we have Obama who came in after so much mayhem from Clinton and Bush, so what do we have . . . a huge mess that will take decades to repair, unless we simply stop spending, which has proven to be unlikely because Congress is greedy. When we get a president that doesn't feel he or she needs to appease those that put them in office, we will get the ball rolling. It is simple economics, and that is something we don't have going for us because politicians think they are gods and our better interest is nothing to them.

I don't understand the fascination with Reagan... he broke the law with Iran-Contra and pretended not to know about it (which we now know was a lie), he raised the debt astronomically (that's a pun... get it? Star Wars? Nevermind...), and his tax policies weren't quite the "No new taxes" that he promised. And yet he's a saint in the GOP...

your twist on the Reagan years is amazing,,,he took over from Jimmmmmmy Caaater with 17% inflation and interest rate at 19% ,,i remember I was there,,,Reagan turned the economy around and got the country moving again with a tax rate that went from 78% to 28%

Just like how Obama's low tax policy, (lower than reagans) isn't working now.

Simple economics - you don't spend more than you take in.

Because it did!

Reagan cut the highest income tax rate from 70% (again) to 28%, plus 15% across-the-board tax cuts. He also had the courage to tough out reigning in the money supply that was causing the crippling stagflation. Both of these policies created a new, a solid foundation for the country that supported a 17 year booming economy. Revenues during this time also doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Unemployment dropped from 10.4% to 5%. Inflation dropped from double digits to about 2%.

Reagan inherited an economy in Stagnation. He made hard decisions (something Carter didn't) to fix it. He have the Fed and Paul Volcker cover as so to reign in the dollar. It hurt. It exacerbated a recession starting in December 1981. However, by the beginning on 1983, like a fever (or addiction) breaking, inflation dropped like a rock as mentioned above. You like to talk about the "downhill" part, but you ignore the booming 17 year economy his fixes allowed for.

The debt was not due to lack of revenue, also mentioned above, it was due to the fact that he was fighting this little thing called the Cold War. He doubled defense spending, opening a new front in the war on the economic battlefield.

His lowering of income taxes, once again listed above, DID work. It was the 2nd stage of the economic rocket, the first being reigning in the dollar.

You've been played for a fool in what you've been told about supply-side tax policy. Lowering taxes have worked EVERY TIME they have been implemented in reviving the economy for almost 100 years. Here's a history. Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge cut the highest income tax rate from 70% to 29% and cut government spending 50%. The result: the Roaring 20's and unemployment of less than 2%. JFK's posthumously passed income tax cuts (90% to 50%) also had a good effect on the economy, creating the revenues for LBJ's Great Society spending.

We've already covered Reagan.

Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax. The already good economy (created by Reagan) went into overdrive. After implementation of the Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (part 2 of the Bush Tax cuts), unemployment dropped from 6.3% and kept on dropping into the 1st quarter of 2007 to a low of 4.4%. This increased revenue to the government. Each of his 2nd term yearly deficits step down significantly, starting with $600 billion, to a low of less than $200 billion in 2007, on track with the projection of a balanced budget in 2010. This, when Bush spending did not decrease. The economy grew at a rate of 3%. All of Bush's gains were blown out of the water by the mortgage meltdown, unrelated to the tax cuts.

Internationally, Margaret Thatcher lowered the highest tax rate from a stifling 95% to mid-thirties, creating an economic boom similar to Reagan’s economy. Post Soviet Russia’s economy was a shambles for years until Putin lowered the corporate tax to 13%. That is when it started to grow into a powerhouse. China flat out eliminated its capital gains tax to spur investment. Now, everyone wants to invest there and there is capital for all sorts of business. The economy is growing at 7.6% (it’s been as high as 13%).

Supply side economics provides positive, beneficial effects for the operation of a business. This can come in the form of tax cuts (the usual form), demand for it’s goods or services, reduced regulatory red-tape and it’s cost or other business-friendly policies. When implemented on a broad scope of the business environment and the economic problems that caused an economic downturn have been cleared enough out of the system, this translates into B2B spending, job creation due to expansion and other general trickle-down spending in the community. All this results in sustainable jobs not paid for by taxpayers. Revenues also increase to government coffers. Business friendly supply-side also makes it easier for start-ups to flourish, adding additional revenue.

The success of low tax solutions is a thorn in the side of Liberal Progressive agendas. Their existence relies on massive government socioeconomic spending in failed attempts to improve the economy. They need huge amounts of other peoples' money to make this happen, never understanding that it is acually counter-productive. They can tax at 95% and still not understand why they aren't getting more revenue. It's like putting a big, fat jockey on the back of a racehorse and not understand why it's not back to winning races again.

We should raise your taxes, then. Oh, wait...you want someone else to pay more, correct?

beats what Obama has done.