By creating them. Using your same inept reasoning, we should cease blaming FDR for social security after 1945 even though he created it just like Lincoln created the income tax.
Sometimes war measures do not get removed at all, like withholding tax, which was something that we got in WW2.
Hence the problem with government programs in general.
And when was Lincoln alive to make policy during peacetime?
His entire lifetime prior to April 11, 1861 excepting the Mexican War and the War of 1812. During that period he served as a state legislator, congressman, Republican Party official and stump speaker, U.S. Senate candidate, U.S. presidential candidate, U.S. president elect, and a month and a half as President. He had more than enough of an opportunity to espouse, promote, and execute peacetime tax hikes.
By amount of money it took in.
As noted previously, measuring a tax cut's severity on its revenue rather than its rates is economically fallacious for the reason that it violates the Laffer Curve. In doing so it leads to conclusions that are downright idiotic whereby a relatively minor 5% tax hike would be rated as "larger" than a 60% tax hike that causes economic ruin to a degree that it suppresses revenues.
No, only one with your lack of reasoning skills would even dare to make a logical leap like that.
But keep telling yourself that it is true, I am sure you can convince yourself of anything.
Sometimes war measures do not get removed at all, like withholding tax, which was something that we got in WW2. Hence the problem with government programs in general.
Agreed.
Some are temporary like Lincoln's war tax, and others aren't.
And when was Lincoln alive to make policy during peacetime? His entire lifetime prior to April 11, 1861 excepting the Mexican War and the War of 1812. During that period he served as a state legislator, congressman, Republican Party official and stump speaker, U.S. Senate candidate, U.S. presidential candidate, U.S. president elect, and a month and a half as President. He had more than enough of an opportunity to espouse, promote, and execute peacetime tax hikes.
So name them!
Tell me just how many awful taxes Lincoln is directly responsible for.
By amount of money it took in. As noted previously, measuring a tax cut's severity on its revenue rather than its rates is economically fallacious for the reason that it violates the Laffer Curve. In doing so it leads to conclusions that are downright idiotic whereby a relatively minor 5% tax hike would be rated as "larger" than a 60% tax hike that causes economic ruin to a degree that it suppresses revenues.
100-120 billion is alot of money-period.
The level of severity of differing taxes does not change the fact that the taxes that Reagan signed into law brought in over 100 billion dollars, the third highest total in peacetime history.
By the way, did taxes go up or down under Reagan in Californa while he was Governor?
They went up.
Despite Reagan’s aversion to taxes, the corporate tax rate doubled during his tenure as California governor, and the top personal income rate jumped by nearly 60 percent.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3638299/