So, did taxes go up overall or not?
He just shifted where the tax burden would fall.
Stop playing word games.
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. Big difference: Lincoln's own party controlled all of Congress in his presidency and he supported each and every tax hike they sent him.
Yes, there was a little matter of a war being fought.
So, how did Davis do with taxes?
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. So you believe that a social program handout is legitimate earned income?
I mean (and you know it) is that the source of revenue is a tax.
Where the money goes is irrevelant to the discussion of taxation.
The money is coming out of our paychecks. No. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she recieves - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.
Yea, and it comes out of our pay checks!
And if I am not receiving a social security handout payment, I am paying out.
As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.
I am paying taxes, they are not.
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) When Reagan took office the top tax bracket's rate exceeded 70%. When he left office it was 28%. Do the math.
Ah,we are not talking about brackets now, but overall revenue going to the treasury from tax revenues.
As you have admitted it was an increase, not a decrease based on shifting the tax burden.
Two, the point being that no 19th century President would have dreamed of the scope of government in the 20 and 21st century. Really? Cause Lincoln assembled the largest military per capita at any point in history, presided over the most far-reaching government welfare giveaway in U.S. history (the Homestead Act), and accumulated more power within the office of the presidency than any president before him as well as any since save, possibly, FDR (and even that is debatable because FDR, unlike Lincoln, did not use his office to harass and obstruct members of the other two branches of the national government).
Because he had to fight one of the greatest wars in history.
What was the size of the 'libertarian' Confdederacy by wars end?
Wars increase the size of Governments.
As for the homestead act, what could be more conservative then giving the 'government' land to the people-free!
We should do the same thing now.
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. Somebody's still gotta pay those tariffs, ftD. In terms of revenue, they function sort of like a sales tax by making goods that people buy more costly. Furthermore, you are flat out wrong about there being no income tax in Lincoln's day. The first income tax was signed into law by Abe Lincoln himself (yet another of his many violations of the constitution) under the Internal Revenue Act of 1862!
Yes, but no one forces you to buy a particular good, so a sales tax allows alot more freedom of action.
Now, with your income taxed, you have no choice in the amount of taxes you are willing to pay, unless you cut back on your income.
The greatest increase of national gov't came in the early 19th century with the progressives, with the income tax and direct elections of senators.
That is where you need to look to see the change in the philosophy of government.
No argument, but it's also important to recognize the popular sentiments that led to those. Direct election of senators was the equivalent of term limits today--a popular move against cronyism and corruption. And the progressive movement in general was a reaction to the excesses of gilded age capitalism.
The Lost Causers on these boards sometimes hold up the unequal railroad rates charged to southern (and western, for that matter) farmers vs. northern manufacturers as evidence of the persistent yankee conspiracy against them. But the whole subject of railroad rates was hotly debated and was a major progressive platform plank. Railroads fought the government long and hard (see Wabash v. Illinois) until the progressives established the ICC.
They did not. Per aCongressional Committee on Joint Taxation study conducted in 2000, the average person's tax burden under the 1980 tax code was 33.2% of their income. After the Reagan cuts it was 21.4% on average. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters.
He just shifted where the tax burden would fall.
Utter left wing Reagan-bashing nonsense. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters. Per Dr. Peter Sperry of the Heritage Foundation the federal tax burden of your beloved social security handouts - which were never a Reagan program to begin with - consistently decreased between 1981 and 1989 for four out of five taxpaying quintiles and only increased slightly (by 2%) for the fifth - the top 20%
Stop playing word games.
The only word games here are yours, ftD, and they're emitting a strong liberal stench not uncommon to your Wlat Brigade predecessors.
Yes, there was a little matter of a war being fought.
...and a big matter of taxes being raised at Lincoln's wishes dating back to the Morrill Tariff's introduction in 1860 over a year before that war began.
So, how did Davis do with taxes?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
I mean (and you know it) is that the source of revenue is a tax.
The source of virtually all revenue these days is a tax of some sort, ftD. Why do you single out a decrease in the amount of handouts for a single program then when calculating your tax assessments?
Yea, and it comes out of our pay checks!
Your reading comprehension is lacking of late, ftD. I'll repeat myself. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she recieves - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.
As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.
Such is the nature of handout programs, and for that particular one you need to be blaming FDR, not Reagan.
Ah,we are not talking about brackets now, but overall revenue going to the treasury from tax revenues.
Revenue increases when economic activity increases (as happened in the 1980's). That doesn't mean taxes went up, and quite to the contrary if a tax cut spurs that increase in economic activity. Don't you remember how the Laffer Curve works?
Because he had to fight one of the greatest wars in history.
So claimed Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, and every other tyrant who ever lived.
What was the size of the 'libertarian' Confdederacy by wars end?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
As for the homestead act, what could be more conservative then giving the 'government' land to the people-free!
It wasn't the government's land though. It was the land of the whole United States and its people, the government only being the mechanism by which it was rationed. The conservative would espouse using the market mechanism of prices to ration that land (using the revenues, in turn, to alleviate the federal tax burden on the people and finance the operations of a limited government) whereas the liberal would espouse rationing by giving it away to persons who meet certain social categories by way of a handout program administered through the bureaucracy, all the while financing the government through taxation measures that are enacted to coincide with that handout program.
We should do the same thing now.
Your liberal bug has reached the state of a fever, ftD. Don't worry though. It happens to all Lincoln idolaters sooner or later because liberalism is the inevitable logical conclusion of Lincoln idolatry.
Yes, but no one forces you to buy a particular good, so a sales tax allows alot more freedom of action.
Is that supposed to make me feel better when the sales tax is an exhorbitant 50% or 100% on the total value of the item (as was frequently the case with the value added onto imports by protective tariffs)? Am I supposed to conclude "well, I have the freedom not to drink tea or play cards so I guess those silly stamps King George wants me to buy are fair enough" and fish the crates out of Boston harbor?
Now, with your income taxed, you have no choice in the amount of taxes you are willing to pay, unless you cut back on your income.
Funny how Lincoln figured that out and exploited it to the fullest with his Internal Revenue Act of 1862 - the same Internal Revenue Act of 1862 that established the first American income tax, which you denied and evidently still deny to have been an issue in the Lincoln administration. Go figure.
The greatest increase of national gov't came in the early 19th century with the progressives, with the income tax and direct elections of senators.
Nah. And I presume you mean early 20th century, BTW. If that is the case they were only acting on the precedents of Lincoln before them. Lincoln invented the income tax in 1862 and it stayed in place for a decade until people started making a stink about the fact that it was unconstitutional. Needless to say, only half a century later the progressives picked up the "Saint Abe did it" banner and crammed the 16th amendment through to restore the Lincolnian economic system. Interestingly enough, the "progressives" 1% tax rate on the main bracket ($3000+ a year) that included everybody but the poor and the super rich was but a tiny fraction of the rates imposed on ALL of Lincoln's income tax brackets! For comparison:
Lincoln Income Tax of 1862:
3% bracket: $600 to $10,000 ($650 to $10,700 in 1913 dollars adjusted for inflation)
5% bracket: $10,000 plus
Lincoln Income Tax Hike of 1864:
5% bracket: $600 to $5,000 ($470 to $3900 in 1913 dollars adjusted for deflation - yes, there was deflation back then)
10% bracket: $5000 +
"Progressives" Income Tax of 1913:
1% bracket: $3,000 to $500,000 individually or $4,000 to $500,000 for married couples
7% bracket: $500,000+