"Wow! Corky really does love some revisionist history."

Corky likes hearing what Corky wants to hear.

"MB is in history denial... sans any paddle."

Thom Hartmann isn't interested in history. If he were, he would have mentioned that when tax rates were at their highest, so were the things you could deduct. In fact it was the wealthy USans who were most against Reagan's TRA86, because even though it lowered marginal rates, it eliminated many of the deductions wealthy households were able to take advantage of. Marginal rates are immaterial. a 91% marginal rate means nothing if you can claim enough deductions to get the effective rate down to zero.

Hartmann also ignores the impacts of the post-war economy, where the US was the only economy on the planet capable of widespread heavy industry.

...but it is me who is in denial...

#24

It's pretty well understood by economists that FDR's economic policies exacerbated the Great Depression. I'm not knocking the guy-he was the first US president to have to deal with something like this, and he created the conditions where, during WWII, the US was able to produce 2/3rds of all military equipment used by the allies during the war. Despite the fact that the US military ranked 39th in the world in 1939.

"Most everyone here, libs at least, already know that... and have forever."

You should shoot your boy Thom an email. He apparently is less educated on the matter than you are.

"Then why did reagan need to do an illegal deal with our enemies to beat him?"

I think I heard about this.

He sent GHWB to Iran in the back seat of an SR-71 to negotiate with the Ayatollah, correct?

#46

Bruh, you'll get no disagreement from me that Clinton was the last fiscal conservative president this country had.

That said...not sure how you can stomach a fiscal conservative. Does the (D) next to the name carry that much weight?

#57

That's a fun narrative that people like Thom on Rob Reich have devoted their lives to keeping alive, but it's mostly a myth in the "Make America Great Again." way. Median household income in inflation-adjusted dollars is higher today than it was when Carter was in office. The average cost of a home in 1979 was $62.9k ($272.5k in 2024). Average house size was 1600 square feet. This comes out to $170 sq/ft in 2024$. Today the average cost of a house is $412k at an average of 2286 sq/ft. This comes out to $180 sq/ft. That's a 5.8% increase.

As for the nefarious "upward transfer of wealth," it never happened. What did happen was an economic shift towards high skilled employees over those with minimal skills. Knowledge workers versus labor workers. What your argument seems to be is that the government didn't take the money being earned by those high-income earners and give it to lower earners who, well, didn't earn it. Why would you expect a construction worker to benefit financially from Apple or IBM releasing a new computer?

The other really big thing is that consumer prices have declined substantially. TVs, blenders, furniture, even the cost of a loaf of bread are a fraction of what they were in 1979.

"When rates are cut, yet the 1% owes a LARGER percentage of the income tax pie, that's PROOF money funnels upward."

Can you explain to me a point in time when the highest quintile didn't pay more in both percentages of the total tax burden. Or when marginal (or effective) rates were higher for lower income earners than higher?

The fact is that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% pays 2%

Is 2% too much?

GRATS funnel money from the poor up to the less poor?

Walk me through how that works.

"Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase."

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent."

Were the Kennedy Tax Cuts wrong as well?

Oh, and what about when GWB cut tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%? That was a far greater giveaway that he gave to those in the highest bracket.

"CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings."

Which makes sense, given that bottom income earners pay so little in taxes to start with. That's a logical outcome. That's why you would cut taxes.

I am intrigued by your middle 20% figure. That's not normally a demographic I've seen emphasized.

Now do the 1st and 2nd quintiles.

"Meaning more income and wealth became concentrated at the top in 1988. That's proof money funnels upward."

No, it means more income earners will willing to trade their talents and resources for more income. Had the tax cuts not been implemented, the economic position of the lower income earners would have been unchanged. No, I take that back. It would have been worse for the lower income earners, as they would have continued to carry that larger percentage of the overall tax burden.

Oh, and wealth will always concentrate at the top. In a free society, those who provide the most to society will make the most money. This can only be interrupted by government stepping in and prohibiting that free exchange.

"88 was the Reagan code."

Maybe he did something in 88, but TRA86 is the act that pissed of the wealthy in the 1980s, and progressives today.

"The rich folks got their tax cuts AND the $493. Not even greater, much less "far greater"."

So you think it was a bad move for GWB to have done that?

"The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED."

How does that not make sense to you. In order to get a tax cut, you have to be paying taxes. 10% of that middle 20% falls into the bottom 50% of income earners, who pay 2.3% of the total federal income tax burden. Do you propose they pay zero taxes?

"When you look at the economy and the debt and the wealth disparity, it's obvious the rich aren't paying enough, and the poor need more relief."

By relief, I'm assuming more money funneled downwards?

No. You can make the claim that the rich should be paying more, but the poor should DEFINITLEY be paying more. A Swedish worker earning $35k a year would be sitting in a 33% tax bracket. The poor in the US pay almost nothing compared to their continental cousins.

I'm not sure if it's some sort of post-Marxian obsession with mediocrity or the belief that the poor should have a sense of entitlement that can be harnessed by progressives as an effective means of governing the economy. But it's not real. It's all emotion based.

"Yup and that's why government needs the power to rebalance the wealth distribution so that capitalism doesn't collapse on itself."

Government could always pass legislation that make the rich poorer. They can do little or nothing to make the poor less poor. Reference Venezuela, or any other number of countries that has attempted to do so. Why, because it would require the wealth-generating class to keep engaging in the activities that generate wealth, even though they were not going to get to keep it.

"As for "providing the most to society" is donald trump rich because he provided so much to society?"

Are you familiar with a TV show called "The Apprentice?

"How does skyrocketing top 1% incomes and stagnating middle class incomes not making sense to you?"

It makes perfect sense. You don't seem to grasp what dudes like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have done in transforming global marketplaces into systems that can provide low costs on almost anything you want to purchase. You can't tell me you see this as a surprise. It's like being surprised at all the models at the met gala, and lack of models at your own party. Or are the met gala partygoers holding you back by not sharing themselves with you?

"It's data based. If you look at the wealth gap over time, it's obvious who has been reaping all the economic benefits and therefore who needs to contribute more."

The ones who are reaping the benefits are the ones who enabling the creation of those benefits in the first place. Why should someone who doesn't work for Elon Musk benefit financially from something musk has created, even if they had no part in it's creation?

"1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes."

As are all other income earners. What you need to realize is that, in order to you accomplish your progressive goals. You need them to keep doing exactly what they are doing, but give the money away. That's not likely to happen, and there isn't any real policy that could compel them to.

"2. When did the middle class grow? When the top was paying a fair share of their huge incomes."

No, the middle class grew in the post-war years because the US was the last remaining industrial power on earth, and it needed strong backs to drill oil, build ships and other heavy equipment. Equipment that would be sent to those countries devastated by war. So for about three decades, you had that paradigm. Then the globe began to get more competitive. Then technology and automation came along. And the middle class had much higher taxes back then too. But taxes on any of them didn't translate to the purchasing powers held by the workers at the time. In fact for a while, the government imposed income ceilings on workers. So employers started providing them with other benefits, like healthcare.

"When did it stop growing? When idiots changed that."

No. It was really a change towards skilled labor who could do more with less, and a globally integrated economy where a country could produce goods at far lower costs than the US could. Which is why a 19" TV cost $2,500 in 1979 (2024$), and now you would have a tough time finding a TV that costs that much. I bought a 70" for my daughter's dorm a few weeks ago. $498.

"Are you not even able to keep up with the things you are saying?"

I think you are attempting to have a discussion on economics without having ever set foot in an econ class.

On the other hand, my econ classes were my favorite. It's why I chose Economic Strategy as the focus for my MBA.

What did you study again, Syco? I don't think it was econ.

Lets do this. I'm in contract purgatory for the next few days, so I'll be working from home. Maybe I can give you a crash course in economic theory. I think I even have a textbook or two somewhere.

You can even drink in class.

"Buddy, even most skilled labor is paid less now than unskilled labor did in the 1970's!"

Nope. Not even close. In inflation Adjusted Dollars a manufacturing worker would earn just under $70k per year. Dentists start at ~$150k per year. Airline pilot make around $219k, but top out at greater than $500k.

And today, an unskilled laborer would make ~$35k per year. There just isn't the demand for it anymore.

"So what are all those illegal immigrants climbing the fence for?"

Asylum. And the benefits that come with it.

"Do you actually believe the random, stupid nonsense you post?"

That's because believing would conflict with the narrative you subscribe to. Kinda like a fundamentalist Christian not believing science because science suggests the earth is more than 4,000 years old.

"Somehow, dumbbomber thinks Minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation."

Think?

I know.

But don't trust me. Look it up yourself. I can do it if you really need me to.

Wages have gone up. What's gone up more is expectation. In the 1960s, one car, one TV, and a 1200 square foot house for a family of four was a reasonable expectation. Now it's multiple TVs, two cars, and a 2500 square foot house. Not to mention a degree in whatever...

"Relatively true, the problem is there would need to be ann incredibly large number of unskilled laborers that would need to "disappear" before it started to crumble."

Relatively true? How?

Most low-income workers simply enable higher income workers to trade money for time. They clean, do landscaping, work in restaurants. they basically do tasks we are all fully qualified to do. We just choose not to because the time we gain back buy paying someone to do the task for us is more valuable that the money we spend doing it.

"I sense ClownHut is drawing from his stupid the "military is socialist" BS bag again."

He wouldn't know socialism if it bit him in the ass. Hell, he may be more of a capitalist than I am. More of a fascist, really.

"Not in the equation. The equation says the rich got richer."

Y'mean the equation says high income earners get to keep more of their earnings than you would like them to.

#125

Yeah...I don't really care. Provided that it is legal. I find it more immoral to tax inheritance than not, but It's not going to move the needle much. Statistically, the kids of the people you mentioned will not be rich past the third generation.