Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

The Reagan tax cuts, still controversial 30 years after being signed into law, were highly...

  • Monday, August 15, 2011, 6:20 PM ET
    The Reagan tax cuts, still controversial 30 years after being signed into law, were highly stimulative, but only because the economic circumstances of the time - high inflation, high tax rates - made it so, Bruce Bartlett writes. Reenacting some version of the tax cuts under today’s conditions - near-zero inflation, low tax rates - would not bring about similar results, he says.
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 47 comments:

  • Near zero inflation?? what is he smoking?

    Low tax rates??? Not where I'm from.
    15 Aug 2011, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • What's inflation today? 3 or 4%
    In 1979 it was 13.3%

    What's the top marginal tax rate today? 35%
    Before Reagan's tax cuts it was 70%

    Do you really not see the difference?
    15 Aug 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • Who's the president today? Barracka HUSSEIN Omama,
    Who was the president at the time? The Honorable President Ronald Reagan.


    I really see the difference.

    PS: IMPEACH omama and the economy recovers instantly.
    15 Aug 2011, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • CPI is not an accurate measure of real inflation, which is closer to 10%
    15 Aug 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • It worked under Reagan because we still had gobs of manufacturing jobs, our children were educated, not indoctrinated, true unemployment wasn't over 20%, and over 50% of families didn't feast on the government teat.

    Now nothing will work except abolishing the FED, installing term limits, and hitting the big debt reset button.
    15 Aug 2011, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Taxes are lower under Obama than when he took office.
    15 Aug 2011, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • lowemoran, stop drinking the cool aid, Reagan is back, reincarnated as Obama. take away the healthcare thing which is pretty much going to die soon and he's running the Reagan playbook perfectly.

    Obama has wet dreams about walking hand in hand with the Gipper! Just look at the last few speeches he's made, always referring to the former president. He's got a man-crush big time....
    15 Aug 2011, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • You really cant compare the two time frames. Offshoring jobs was non-existent, there was no internet to facilitate such a transfer of work.

    Ive heard the 50% stat too many times from the righties, Really??? You rail about education, but would an educated person just read the ticker on fixed news and not spend a minute to do some research (valid research) to confirm that stat?

    So lets put it this way, what you are saying is that every other person in this country is on welfare. That just sounds stupid. 50% may be on some sort of assistance, like unemployment and SS, but we pay into those systems, it doesn't count, unless you're a fact checker at fixed news!!
    15 Aug 2011, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • Inflation is in no way close to 10%. The only people saying that are the crazy government conspiracy shadowstat types.
    15 Aug 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Not sure where you are shopping but you are doing it wrong
    16 Aug 2011, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • Where are you from?

    payroll tax holiday and low marginal rates and more write offs than ever

    And low cap gains
    16 Aug 2011, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • fact
    16 Aug 2011, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • I think they are referring to the 46% that don't pay federal income taxes?

    It was shown that a not insignificant number of those made between 50-75K and even some between 75K-100K

    Story is always more complicated
    16 Aug 2011, 12:15 AM Reply Like
  • Would you at least agree that the CPI number is not accurate?
    16 Aug 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, but they have like 8 kids!

    We should stop giving tax deductions for having kids. We don't have a population shortage. OTOH, under our economic system, we need constant growth to keep the Ponzi schemes running, so extra kids are good. Now, if only there was some way to guarantee that they would be able to get a job when they grow up and pay taxes, everything would be hunky-dory.
    16 Aug 2011, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • JB1982 -

    You are correct.

    There has been asset inflation (i.e. affecting the price of commodities, agricultural products, stocks but little else to date) and businesses with input costs affected by those increases would dearly like to pass those costs on (but generally can't in the currently restrained economic environment).

    In fact, when these inflation becomes more general (and this will be modest at the onset), this will be a sign that the recovery is definitely on firmer ground. It is at that point (but not sooner) that the fiscal and monetary authorities should begin modest restraint.
    16 Aug 2011, 02:07 AM Reply Like
  • He means that that folks won't be spending more because of a tax cut since they don't pay any taxes now anyway since they don't make enough money to since the economy sucks.
    15 Aug 2011, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • Get government out of the way and the economy can flourish and grow. By putting excessive obstacles via costs and regulations on people's backs, government stifles initiative and opportunity. Same now as then.

    It's only controversial because many people have a need for an intrusive authority they believe, against all evidence, is benign.
    15 Aug 2011, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • And what do you think the probability of government nicely stepping aside would be? Zero? How about less than zero?

    Stop spewing BS that has no anchor in the real world.
    15 Aug 2011, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • Yeah! Enron would be here today if government had got out of the way and not burdened it with regulations like actually owning assets you said you owned.
    15 Aug 2011, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Just as Obama should blindly imitate FDR, GOPers should not slavishly adhere to Reaganomics.

    Times change, new problems arise, and different solutions are needed.
    15 Aug 2011, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bruce Bartlett is an interesting guy. A conservative who is guided by the facts and circumstances when assessing situations and potential options; not just ideological wish lists.
    15 Aug 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Actually there is quite a few who are saying the same

    They are just conservatives who are not elected or caught up in this current tea party delusion
    16 Aug 2011, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner -

    They need to make their collective voices heard within the GOP.
    16 Aug 2011, 02:09 AM Reply Like
  • Reagan's policies worked because they restored confidence in the economy. Today, that confidence is lacking.
    15 Aug 2011, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • You need to go read some history! Reagan was the real beginning of many of the problems we face today.
    ==========
    I quote:
    "Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    15 Aug 2011, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • The real longer term problems actually began with Reagan..During his term, his administration began a new evolution of "Debt"...During the 80's, the FED began to rack up huge billion dollar deficits, with no real plan to pay any of it back..Those debts evolved into what todays problems...

    The government debt bubble began with Reagan, and now the bubble will burst with Obama. The discretionary spending bubble, the housing bubble, the private debt bubble, all bursted in the last couple years... We are all waiting on the govt. debt bubble to burst...Once this occurs, the U.S. dollar bubble will pop..

    Then the real party is over. The fed will have to create inflation of 100%+ to prevent the govt from collapsing.
    15 Aug 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • The "near zero inflation" statement is about as accurate as "impeach ...and the economy recovers instantly". Tax cuts are stimulus just as government spending is stimulus, its who controls the spending and at what rate. If tax cuts are saved, they do not stimulate anything, just like waste of tax dollars on some government programs. The smoke-and-mirrors CPI stats hurt us more than anything, since real returns on just about any fixed income instrument are negative and our purchasing power has eroded (www.shadowstats.com/al...).

    We are now Japan 1990's, and low interest rates did not help them correct anything, and neither will the Fed's policy. There is still psychological overhang from 2008, otherwise companies would not be keeping so much cash - they are not sure they will be able to get financing, so they plan to self-finance. Ironic that companies are actually losing money by holding their cash due to real inflation, and their borrowing costs are as low as they are ever going to be.
    15 Aug 2011, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Why are these crook politicians still running this country?
    15 Aug 2011, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • Because we voted them in and like cockroaches, once they get a toehold, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them.

    All politicians are same. If not, why don't we see ANY of them standing up on the floor of the House or Senate and demanding that Congress get serious? There don't seem to be any real voices campaigning for sanity in Washington, D.C.
    15 Aug 2011, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • Heresy!

    To all the Kudlow watching, god-fearing, military-industrial complex loving right-wingers, tax cuts are the solution to EVERY economic ill.
    15 Aug 2011, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • Honestly, I don't care whether cutting taxes really benefits the economy or not (although I think it does), the point is government should not be entitled to take as much from me as it wants, to pay for programs that I don't agree with. What gives them the right to spend my money?? This is about freedom, not prosperity.
    15 Aug 2011, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • And I think that is the crux of the matter. YOU don't like to pay taxes for programs and services that YOU don't personally agree with. I think we all feel similar.

    Unfortunately, government doesn't offer a la carte tax choices. Wish it did.

    Everyone pays taxes and the representatives we elected decide who gets what. That is the way our representative democracy works. I don't see it changing anytime soon either.
    16 Aug 2011, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • Well said Jackson, we are a nation with shared interests, and share resources, not every man for himself.
    16 Aug 2011, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr -

    Is this just a sentiment or a fully considered idea? What you are rejecting is the very notion that the national, state and local governments should have the capacity to raise a revenue. In other words, you are essentially rejecting the concept of organized government.

    Good luck with that.
    16 Aug 2011, 02:13 AM Reply Like
  • I am not asking the government to offer choices, I am asking them to stop providing services that should be the domain of private businesses and charities. That way I can have a choice of whether or not to participate. However, you are probably right that it won't change anytime soon.
    16 Aug 2011, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • You can contribute all you want to "shared interests" and see how rewarding that is. My number one priority will always be taking care of myself. I think many others would find themselves better off if they did the same.
    16 Aug 2011, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Life, Liberty, Property. I am willing to pay the government enough to protect those three things. Yes I am a Libertarian. No we will probably never win anything. That doesn't change my beliefs.

    As an afterthought, keep in mind the country had no income tax until 1913.
    16 Aug 2011, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr -

    A modern economy in an advanced country of over 300 million people can not function with the extreme minimalist government role you favour. Further, the democratic process in such a country will suffer if a large portion of the electorate in such a country place the adoption of such a role at the top of their agenda and choose always to vote only in what they perceive to be their individual narrow interests.

    Such a country is a house built upon a hill of sand; the hill being the alienated and isolated collection of autonomous individuals.
    16 Aug 2011, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Yet from my "isolated, alienated" mountain top, I still probably contribute more to the economy than all your collectivist friends and their altruistic agendas.
    16 Aug 2011, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr -

    Surely we're not now at the 'mine is bigger than yours' level of discussion. It's gutsy of you though to go toe to toe with Warren Buffet on that basis; I'll give you that!
    16 Aug 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Okay tell you what, you give up your privileges to drive on roads, use power and water, and all emergency services, and you can decide whatever taxes you want to pay.
    16 Aug 2011, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Heresy!

    To all the Krugman reading, Satan worshipers, gay loving left-wingers, spending more and incurring more debt are the solution to EVERY economic ill.
    16 Aug 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • LMAO!! Darkway the moron.....


    PS: IMPEACH OMAMA!!
    16 Aug 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • Roads are a very small part of the budget, and a chunk of that is paid by fuel taxes, (a usage fee). I am fine with continuing this policy, (also, my truck can handle off road terrain pretty good.)

    I pay private companies for power and water.

    Emergency services....I think that is funded by mainly state and local, but I could do with a lot less police out on the road shaking me down for chump change at every opportunity.
    17 Aug 2011, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • What can I say, gutsy is my middle name. All I know is that I go out and work my ass off everyday and I would be willing to bet that most proponents of "the common good" are more interested in lunching with celebrities and organizing pep rallies.
    17 Aug 2011, 01:29 AM Reply Like
  • Politics is the new religion - its now about belief for a number of people, not necessarily independant facts.
    16 Aug 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)