Obama: Why Reaganomics Didn't Work. Spread the Wealth

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Wrong. While it's not the most wisely worded sentence/phrase, your suggestion implies a different meaning. Or rather, it states that it was indeed an incentive, when this article is saying the top rate did not turn people off (for lack of a better way to say it) from working or investing. In other words, it is stating what the top rate did not do, not what it did. Two different things.

Nik of CA 11:43PM December 09, 2009

While it may be true that supply side economics widens the gulf between the rich and the poor, it is not true that the poor are somehow made more poor by this. The wealthy will invest access revenue(which increases the tax base), the middle class will save access revenue, and the poor will spend away access revenue leaving them just as poor as before but with new stuff.

red13 of TX 8:15PM November 01, 2008

Get real, Reagaonomics worked! The only reason it appears the poor are getting poorer is that illegal immigration is out of control. The poor in this country have cars, cell phones, and tvs. Give me a break!!! If Obama gets elected watch the stock market tank with all these unnecessary taxes. Unemployment will go up too.

Veer Right of SC 8:14PM October 30, 2008

"In other words, a tax system that wasn't indexed for inflation and that had a sky-high 70 percent top rate was not a disincentive to working or investing." In the end of your sentence: "the top rate was not a disincentive to working or investing" you are employing the use of an ungrammatical doulble negative. Next time just say "the top rate was an incentive to working or investing." If you want someone to understand your flawed economic philiosophy, at least make it grammatical.

Steve of PA 11:04AM October 28, 2008

I'm not sure who wrote your talking points for you, but they are incorrect.
Have a look at this report from the Federal Resevere Bank of Minneapolis, you'll see that income per person adjusted for inflation is up 80% over the past 30 years.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4049
The part you did get right though is if your going to lie , Lie Big

DJC of FL 9:08AM October 28, 2008

The median income (single earner) corrected for inflation hasn't increased since the beginning of the 70's, while the GNP has been constantly increasing. WHY? Isn't it a serious problem?
It seems to show that, when the tides is climbing, small boats are sinking.

Bob Binette of NH 6:44AM October 25, 2008

The median income (single earner) corrected for inflation hasn't increased since the beginning of the 70's, while the GNP has been constantly increasing. WHY? Isn't it a serious problem?
It seems to show that, when the tides is climbing, small boats are sinking.

Bob Binette of NH 6:42AM October 25, 2008

"But you got yourself a lot more billionaires to idolize."
Yes, god forbid people become billionaires.
And god forbid those people who became billionaires from expanding their companies in the process, employing thousands more people than they ever would have had they never become billionaires.
Those are some evil folks.

amk of KY 4:26AM October 25, 2008

"When taxes are high, people and corporations are MORE likely to spend on employees---not LESS.
Nonsense, you say?"
Yes, this is the dumbest comment I've seen for a while.
While business is good where I work, anticipation of Obama policies has management already planning cuts in the workforce in marginal areas. Certain low margin operations are acceptable when taxes are low, but the margin goes away altogether with tax hikes, and costs are costs... no, we won't do the work if there's no payback.

Gene Bocoi of AL 2:44PM October 24, 2008

"Yet the initial effect of the 1980s tax cuts was a deluge of folks back into the labor market (the labor force participation rate went from 63.6 percent in 1980 to 66.5 percent in 1989). "
Wasn't this because more women joined the workforce and NEW folks in the workplace, not returning folks? Now it takes both parents in a household working to maintain an adequate standard of living.

of WI 11:40AM October 24, 2008