Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: fortheDeclaration
Reagan cut taxes once in office and then raised them again for SS-did he not?

Wrong. Reagan cut taxes starting in 1981 over three stages through 1984 IIRC. The 1986 tax cut was a mixed bag the further cut the rates in the upper income tax brackets but raised them indirectly through capital gains and the removal of state tax and consumer loans deductions - a product of the Democrats in Congress (specifically Gephardt and Bill Bradley) more than anything Reagan did.

The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income.

In any case however, you have absolutely no evidence that Lincoln would've found anything Reagan did to social security objectionable beyond your own uninformed speculation. As to whether he would've found the Reagan tax cuts objectionable, that much may be concluded on the fact that in his own lifetime and 30+ year political career Lincoln never once wavered on raising taxes and never saw a tax hike that he did not like.

2,969 posted on 02/28/2005 10:44:24 AM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2961 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist; x; capitan_refugio; Non-Sequitur; M. Espinola
Reagan cut taxes once in office and then raised them again for SS-did he not? Wrong. Reagan cut taxes starting in 1981 over three stages through 1984 IIRC. The 1986 tax cut was a mixed bag the further cut the rates in the upper income tax brackets but raised them indirectly through capital gains and the removal of state tax and consumer loans deductions - a product of the Democrats in Congress (specifically Gephardt and Bill Bradley) more than anything Reagan did.

Reagan had to agree to them did he not?

I am not blaming Reagan, but the fact is that a Presidency is only one office and has to deal with other branches of government just like Lincoln would have had to.

The Social Security Act of 1983 subjected half of the program's handouts to income tax, which technically speaking is NOT a tax hike since the fee is extracted from a government entitlement rather than actual earned income.

Technically speaking is government double-speak.

The money is coming out of our paychecks.

In any case however, you have absolutely no evidence that Lincoln would've found anything Reagan did to social security objectionable beyond your own uninformed speculation. As to whether he would've found the Reagan tax cuts objectionable, that much may be concluded on the fact that in his own lifetime and 30+ year political career Lincoln never once wavered on raising taxes and never saw a tax hike that he did not like.

Lets take the spin off this real quick.

First, were we paying more in taxes after Reagan left then when in came in (and I include SS as a tax)

Two, the point being that no 19th century President would have dreamed of the scope of government in the 20 and 21st century.

Whigs, Democrats, Federalists would have been appalled by it.

When you talk about Lincoln raising taxes, please remember that the nation had no personal income tax, hence our tax rate, even with high tarriffs was very low.

It is very easy to forget we are dealing with a different historical period and neglect the all important historical context.

2,970 posted on 02/28/2005 1:38:10 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2969 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson