Who's right?Are taxes lower now

[ugonow]

than under Reagan?-----"GOP Can’t Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan
By Pat Garofalo on Jun 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm

President Obama met with House Republicans today at the White House to discuss ways to move forward on negotiations regarding the nation’s debt ceiling and the budget. During the discussion, talk evidently turned to taxes, and when Obama noted that taxes today are lower than they were under President Reagan, the GOP, according to The Hill, “engaged in a lot of ‘eye-rolling’“:

Republicans attending a White House meeting on Wednesday didn’t take kindly to President Obama telling them tax rates were higher during the Reagan administration. GOP members engaged in a lot of “eye-rolling,” according to a member who was on hand to hear Obama, who invited House Republicans to the White House for discussions on the debt ceiling. [...]

“[The President] made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”

That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.

For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years."

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I paid much more in taxes under Bush, than I am under the current prez. This inspite of making nearly $15K more than I was 3.5 years ago.

Tax rates are lower now because of cuts made by Bush.

[ugonow]

I know once Reagan cut income bracket rates, he had to scramble to raise revenue to combat the rising deficit, and raised a lot of other taxes, but they are only talking rates on income,I believe.

[reasonfreedom]

I think I am right and that taxes suck

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Who gives a shit about what happened 30 years ago. We have much more severe problems today, bigger govt, more govt waste, structural unemployment, an unstable economy, etc., etc.

[ugonow]

I think Reagan's TERFA was a pretty good way to help combat the deficit.

[safeharbor37]

"Taxes are lower ~ or higher" is meaningless and subject to endless distortion for political purposes. Lower tax rates are not equivalent to lower taxes and is is almost certain that some pay higher taxes than others ~ whether they pay a higher rate or not. By avoiding specifying what one means by "higher" or "lower" taxes, one can promote whatever lie one is interested in promoting.
Reagan lowered some taxes, raised others, removed some exclusions and, no doubt, created others. Further, Reagan dealt primarily with a Democrat Congress and had to make allowance for that. Tax "rates" don't translate as equivalent in different time frames for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the internationalization of finance and commerce so whatever one wishes to say should be qualified by recognition of effects of changes over the years. This may not make much sense to the young, but those who've been around a while have observed and experienced the differences [although not necessarily having learned much as a consequence].
George Bush further reduced taxes and GHWB & Clinton didn't raise taxes much, so it's reasonable that taxes today are at pretty low rates. What isn't taken into account in the above article is that the incomes on which these taxes are levied are much higher than during the Reagan Years [although not necessarily in "real" terms, illustrating the "invisible tax" of inflation]. I've never paid an unreasonable tax based on my income, but I've always taken advantage of whatever tax breaks I could find.
I generally don't find the various sides presenting the whole picture, but tending to promote whatever view justifies their preconception.

[mmhmm]

I generally don't find the various sides presenting the whole picture, but tending to promote whatever view justifies their preconception.

Precisely! Thanks, safeharbor, for telling it like it is. As in most problematic situations, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Polarization makes for great rhetoric, but it doesn't get anything done.

I, too, feel I've never paid exorbitant taxes based on my income. Taking advantage of available tax breaks is something anyone with more than two active brain cells is going to do, I'd think. I'd love to see the tax laws simplified, but I'm not holding my breath. Over the years, I've seen that would only result in my cessation. I'm smart enough to admit I'm not smart enough to have the answer, and that makes me reluctant to beat up on anybody who's been in office through my tax-paying lifetime.

[formerexpat]

FICA has increased from 6.13% to 7.65% each from employer and employee [i.e. 12.26% to 15.3%] since Regan was president.

The FICA ceiling was also just $25.9k in 1980.

SECA [FICA for self employed] was 8.1% in 1980 and is now 15.3%. Most of the high earners are apparently self employed and are absorbing this increase of 7.2% on the first $100k of their earnings. Now, Obama wants them to pay 50% for federal taxes too?

The politicians should tread water carefully. They're not too far away from a mass exodus from this country. Those that make more generally have the ability to leave the country and live just fine.

[formerexpat]

Total income taxes paid in 1980 to the US government were $249 billion. In 2008, they were $1.032 trillion.

They are higher now than in 1980, by more than 4x.

[henryclay]

Tax rates are meaningless if tax collections can't stay ahead of new spending. And that fact is as old as tax itself.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC

[mwcpa]

expat .... but what was the total "income" in 1980 versus 2008?.... would is be 4x higher? you cannot look at absolutes to compare.... there is inflation and other factors that change absolute dollars..... what did milk cost in 1980 and gas..... in absolute dollars it would be less, but is it really less when inflation and other factors are thrown in (I did not look it up, so it's a question)

Henry.... it seems Congress and other politicians failed history class.... this is probably not on the test anymore, since our schools now teach to the test instead of teaching so one can learn.....

are federal income taxes lower today or in the past....

if one made a 300K salary in 1987, 1988 their federal income tax was 107,755 and 83,160, respectively (assuming no deductions, no other income and is a single person)

if one made the same 300K in 2010 and 2011.... the federal income tax would be 81,031 and 80,762.....

if the salary was 50,000 in the four years noted, using the same other facts.... net federal income tax.... 11,805, 10,397, 5,950, 6,250 in 1987, 1988, 2010 and 2011, respectively.....

but in real terms... 50K or 300K in 1987 and 1988 is a lot more than 50K or 300K today...