Ron Paul in 2012

[sharkman]

You mean like the people from Goldman Sachs in his administration?

I can see why you consistently try to avoid providing sources and verifiable facts in your posts. That would just make it more obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Keep 'em coming, pretty soon you'll break 100!

As you get to know your way around here, perhaps you'll want to start providing posts with sources, verifiable facts and actual positions on issues rather than just characterizations of other posts. Although that is pretty good for a sub 100 poster.

[punked]

Usually they exclude food and oil from the basket of goods used to determine the CPI, which they sometimes use to determine inflation. It depends on what calculation they're looking at.

Doesn't matter the numbers I cited are both CPI and BPP.

[cybercoma]

Keep 'em coming, pretty soon you'll break 100!

As you get to know your way around here, perhaps you'll want to start providing posts with sources, verifiable facts and actual positions on issues rather than just characterizations of other posts. Although that is pretty good for a sub 100 poster.

An ad hominem? That's your only response to Goldman Sachs people having a place in Obama's administration as a counter to your argument that he's anti Wall Street?

[sharkman]

Obama's pretty left-leaning. He'd probably be better suited as a leader of a European country than President of the United States.

It's a good thing he lost Congress when Americans realized what a leftie he was.

[Guest American Woman]

msj, on 21 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said: I didn't know that the POTUS could set State tax rates.

They don't. But they're still higher taxes levied on tax payers. Much higher now than under Reagan and Eisenhower.

Which has nothing to do with the POTUS.

So the myth about tax rates are the lowest ever, or in a long time is completely ridiculous.

Not if one is speaking about federal taxes.

During Reagan and Eisenhower, there were some states that didn't even have a state income tax. Now some states have one's close to 20%.

There are currently seven states without a state income tax and two that only tax on interest and dividend earnings, not salaries. What states used to have no income tax but now do?

As for the state with the highest state income tax, that would be Hawaii - at 11%, not "close to 20%."

[GostHacked]

Alright let's get this sucker back on topic .... I'll start.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-20/ron-paul-rises-in-polls/52132336/1?csp=34news

WASHINGTON – Texas Rep. Ron Paul can raise millions of dollars in a single day, has a solid organization of passionate supporters and recently has been moving up in the polls, yet few mainstream Republicans are willing to give him the "front-runner" title so many of his rivals in the GOP presidential field have held.

The GOP is deciding who is their front runner regardless of how many times Paul actually beats everyone else. So the people in the end have no say. The polls show Paul is in the top tier but the GOP and everyone else seems to be keeping him down and sidelining him simply because I think they are afraid of him.

[GostHacked]

I dare the MSM to do this to any other the other candidates.

He gave the answer, and gave that answer a long time ago?

[Shady]

Which has nothing to do with the POTUS.

Never said it did.

Not if one is speaking about federal taxes.

Yes, even if one is speaking about federal taxes. Like I said. The top rate under Reagan was 28%. It's now 35%.

What states used to have no income tax but now do?

Connecticut for one. No income tax prior to 1991.

As for the state with the highest state income tax, that would be Hawaii - at 11%, not "close to 20%."

You're right. I was looking at state and local taxes combined.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, even if one is speaking about federal taxes. Like I said. The top rate under Reagan was 28%. It's now 35%.

I applaud you for using numbers, however our sources disagree.

A quick Wiki search says:

The one exception is the period from 1982–1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate. From 1981 until 1986 the top marginal rate was lowered to 50%.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Which one is right?

[dre]

I applaud you for using numbers, however our sources disagree.

A quick Wiki search says:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Which one is right?

He just cherry picked the numbers. The top rate was 70% when Reagan took office, and it was at least 50% for most of his term.

1980 70%

1982 50%

1984 50%

1986 50%

1988 28%

1990 28%

1992 31%

1994 39.6%

1996 36%

1998 36%

2000 36%

2002 35%

2004 33%

2006 33%

2008 33%

2010 33%

Edited December 23, 2011 by dre

[Shady]

I applaud you for using numbers, however our sources disagree.

A quick Wiki search says:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Which one is right?

The top rate was lowered to 50% in '82, and then down to 28% in '86.

[Shady]

He just cherry picked the numbers. The top rate was 70% when Reagan took office, and it was at least 50% for most of his term.

I'm not cherry picking anything. Reagan took the top rate from 70% to 28%, just like I said. But your post is incorrect. The tax reform of '86 instituted the 28% top marginal rate. You've listed it at 50%. That's incorrect. And for some reason you skip years.

[The_Squid]

Wouldn't that be something? From an African-American to a racist as president!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/ron-paul-racist-newsletter-scandal?newsfeed=true

[olp1fan]

Ron Paul was born in 1935..which would make him 76..I wouldn't be comfortable voting for somebody that old

[waldo]

The top rate under Reagan was 28%.

He just cherry picked the numbers. The top rate was 70% when Reagan took office, and it was at least 50% for most of his term.

1980 70%    /    1982 50%   /    1984 50%    /    1986 50%    /    1988 28%    /    1990 28%

dre, your numbers look about right to me... Reagan's term: January 20, 1981 on through January 20, 1989

History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

1981 69.125%   /    1982 50%   /    1983 50%    /    1984 50%    /    1985 50%    /    1986 50%    /    1987 38.5%    /    1988 28%    /    1989 28%

[Shady]

dre, your numbers look about right to me... Reagan's term: January 20, 1981 on through January 20, 1989

History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

1981 69.125%   /    1982 50%   /    1983 50%    /    1984 50%    /    1985 50%    /    1986 50%    /    1987 38.5%    /    1988 28%    /    1989 28%

Yep, just like I said. Reagan took the top rate from 70% to 28%.

Anyways, regardless, it puts an end to the myth that tax rates today are at an all-time low. That just isn't true.

[punked]

Yep, just like I said. Reagan took the top rate from 70% to 28%.

Anyways, regardless, it puts an end to the myth that tax rates today are at an all-time low. That just isn't true.

Wait wait wait wait. That is only if we are talking income tax which isn't what the top earners in the US pay they pay a rate on their investments and capital gains which is much lower then it was under Reagan. You are being disingenuous. It is so bad that Romney has said we wont release his tax return because he knows he pays much much much lower taxes then the middle class. He is paying taxes in the teens if not lower.

Again taxes on the highest earners the Waren Buffets and the Willard Romney's are paying a lower rate then they ever would have in the US.

[Michael Hardner]

The top rate was lowered to 50% in '82, and then down to 28% in '86.

Ok... Seems to be corroborated by Dre's post too...

[punked]

Ok... Seems to be corroborated by Dre's post too...

Yah but that is because they aren't actually looking at the rate that high income earners pay. They don't get an income they get paid in investments which they may cash out. This means they wont pay income tax which is what they are talking about they would pay capital gains. Everyone is arguing about the wrong thing right now.

[LonJowett]

Ok... Seems to be corroborated by Dre's post too...

Not really. The link said it was 50% in '86, 38.5% in '87, and 28% in '88 when Reagan was no longer in office. Bush found that irresponsible and unsustainable, and despite his "read my lips" promise, raised it to a more moderate (but still historically very low) level.

[Shady]

Yah but that is because they aren't actually looking at the rate that high income earners pay. They don't get an income they get paid in investments

Huh?

Only a small percentage of high earners rely on just investment income. Why btw, is already income that's been taxed at the income tax rate. Most high earners earn an income salary, just like everybody else.

[Shady]

(but still historically very low) level.

More nonsense. It wasn't historically low. That's just not true.

How are you calling a 31% tax rate historically low, when just a few years earlier it was 28%?

[LonJowett]

More nonsense. It wasn't historically low. That's just not true.

Look at the link. See what the rates were in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Don't just cherry-pick one figure that lasted for two years.

Then apologize profusely for not knowing what you're talking about.

[Shady]

Look at the link. See what the rates were in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Don't just cherry-pick one figure that lasted for two years.

How about looking prior to the 1920s as well? Anyways, the fact that rates were at 28% by definition proves your claim of 31% being historically low as completely false. It's fact. There's no arguing it. Math doesn't lie. Only you do.

[LonJowett]

How about looking prior to the 1920s as well? Anyways, the fact that rates were at 28% by definition proves your claim of 31% being historically low as completely false. It's fact. There's no arguing it. Math doesn't lie. Only you do.

So interest rates are not historically low right now because last year they were lower?

Yes, you could leave the modern era entirely and look at tax rates in the stone age too. But that might not be a logical or fair comparison.

But you shouldn't call people liars when you've been proven a fool. It's unbecoming and against forum rules.