Today, the New York Times spends four pages, thousands of words and a multimedia slide show to tell the world that we’re less taxed now than we were in 1980. Headline: Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan ’80s.
The Times then pulls some hacky sleight of hand that will only fool liberals, using 1980 as its banner year. The obvious implication is that the current economy could do with higher taxes, which just happens to be the Democratic Party’s position in the fiscal cliff negotiations. The other obvious implication is that if higher tax rates were good enough for the man most identified with 1980, Ronald Reagan, well then they should be good enough for John Boehner et al.
The obvious problem with the Times’ second obvious implication: Those high 1980 tax rates and their drag on the economy helped elect Reagan. He started cutting taxes after his inauguration, which was in 1981. And the economy grew enormously. That growth undercuts the Times’ first implication.
If the Times really wanted to inform its cocooned readers (stop laughing), it could go back and take a look at one of the last times Democrats promised Republicans they would cut spending in exchange for tax cuts. That was in 1983, which is in the vicinity of the Times’ benchmark 1980 year. The Times could also go back and take a look at the last time Democrats and Republicans came together on a comprehensive immigration reform plan that included both beefed up security and paths to legalization for the illegal aliens where here at the time. That was in 1986.
In both cases, the Reagan Republicans accepted deals with the Democrats in good faith, and in both cases, the Democrats failed to live up to their ends of the deals. Is there any reason for Republicans to believe that the current crop of Democrats will be any more faithful, or that their word holds any more value, now than it did during the Reagan years?
But whatever. History is boring.
The correlation between the Times’s ever-increasing deceitfulness and its accelerating loss of circulation is very strong. The ruling class over there must have convinced itself that it’s “just a glitch.” We shall see.
Your article is entirely correct. The Reagan-era deregulation and tax cuts gave the economy a new lease on life. But it took a little while after Reagan took office for it all to happen.
What’s more, state and local taxes have skyrocketed since then, with no end in sight. Spending has grown even faster. Just look at the balance sheets of California and Illinois! The resulting debt overhang puts a crushing burden on the economy as a whole. Because state and local taxes are deductible from federal income tax, they amount to a subsidy from the low-tax states to the high-tax states. You can blame the public-sector unions for that one.
“Democrats promised Republicans they would cut spending in exchange for tax cuts” I think that should be “tax increases”.
Give ‘em a break – they are dumber than a box of rocks.
Really? — One thing we have figured out is that you guys, “folks”, as your fearless leader likes to call you –how do you like being “just plain folks”? no pride?– well, we have figured out that you’re “crookeder” than an upended sack of plug nickels. That’s much worse than dumb, as “dumbness” can be schooled, while a crooked character remains, a life-long trait. Time flies, as the wheel turns. The “Lying Times” will soon be less useful than toilet paper, as will your opinion — of anything!
I’m going to assume stupidity, since I will assume the Time juiceboxer who put it together probably wasn’t even born then.
If not stupidity, then in a trial the jury would never believe the NYT as a credible witness again.
Huh?
Wasn’t born then, but somehow finds themselves able to associate 1980 tax rates with the late 1980 election, and doesn’t know a President takes office early in the next year?
And I suppose the Editors weren’t born then either. And the Editors don’t know Presidential election timelines.
Occam’s Razor. Easiest explanation is purposeful intent to deceive.
– when it was first posted and wrote to the Times that it would only fool those who wanted to believe life was fair under Carter 32 years ago.
You also have to deflate current income levels by around 50% to match the brackets, I haven’t clicked on the NYT article to see if they did that, why should they as long as their major premise is a lie anyway.
I will admit I did not yet read the article, but a few things to think about related to this. Nothing that I have not read on this site recently, but to be considered at any rate.
The tax code at the 1980 time period was much more enteraining, as I remember, then the one now. I will admit my last tax class was in 1978, so my memory could be confusded.
There were substantially more types of deductions in the code. Not as many credits for most middle class folks, but the schedule A deductions were much higher. I thought that one of the give and takes in the Reagan tax code changes was the reduced rates offset by few deductions. Living the southwest, I know some folks pointed to some of these change as a driver to the savings and loan crisis in the later 80s.
A true apple to apples comparison would be difficult. It is likely more important to consider the law of unintended consequenses when changes as significant as tax codes changes are made.
Wow…..St Ronnie raised taxes 8 times in his rein of error – yet you pool around him like he was Ghandi. Everyone understands your brains are wired differently than all others – authority and fear dominate your small, cluttered worlds. Education is a wonderful thing: I wish you folks would have considered it important when you were young.
You forgot “and all because a black man was elected president.” So report to your handlers, they’re sure to deduct a buck or two for your glaring failure to race-bait.
Your point is Reagan agreed to raise taxes at some points during his tenure.
The article is about the failure of journalism and intentional deceitfulness in support of a partisan political position.
If raising taxes is the right thing to do, and if it will be beneficial, the NYT ought to be able to argue it without resorting to deception.
Well Jimbo, you have rightly pointed out what conservatives failed to learn from Reagan– you can’t make deals with the left.
+1
– you banned him months ago.