Community College. have not decided yet if I want to get back in to LE, or if it will be for something else.....
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Should be interesting to say the least...
but its the same crap everywhere.... just about different things..
Actually, both. One thing that lots of people don't realize, or don't remember, is that when the top rate was that low, not only did the total collected revenue increase, but the share that the rich paid was larger. The top 1% paid 17.5% of the tax burden in 1981, but by 1988, they paid 27.5% of the tax burden. The top 10% saw their share go from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. These are some of the statistics that blow holes in the theory that it was all a windfall for the rich because of Reagan's tax policies. Another interesting fact that people miss is that the Bush tax cuts decreased the share paid by the poor from 0.5% to 0.3%, while it increased the share on the top 20% from 79% to 81%.
Some sources regarding these and more statistics that make for good reading:
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
Bush's tax cuts are unfair to the rich
This one I've posted before somewhere, but it's a good read on stimulative theories in recent history:
Why tax rate reductions are more stimulative than rebates
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, June 15, 2009 3:54 PM