Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The irresponsibility argument I understand. What that has to do with tax increases on the working poor and middle class I don't. Are you suggesting the portion of Reagan's spending not financed with debt could have been covered exclusively by those outside the middle class and working poor?
A deficit's a holiday from tax obligations for all, not just for the rich, or the poor, or the middle. And even that's generous, as it can be argued the poor and middle get more in terms of services and as a result see a much bigger free lunch from deficit spending than do their wealthy counterparts.
Reagan ballooned deficits, yes. And this is worthy of criticism. But the argument he did so by fucking the poor and middle class doesn't hold water. You wreck a good point stretching to make that argument.
|
You are missing the point completely. Reagan and Reaganites argued that he cut taxes for everyone (a paraphrase, but that's the gist). The reality is that Reagan cut
income taxes, while raising
payroll taxes. Unlike income taxes, payroll taxes are not progressive; in fact, they are regressive because of the cap on the amount subject to the tax.
Reagan and the Reaganites justified this by arguing that the payroll tax wasn't a "real" tax because it went into SS and Medicare, and people paying it would get it back. (Echoes of this argument are heard today, when people claim that x%% of Americans pay no taxes at all. It's bullshit.)
But, in reality, those payroll taxes went to cover the spending increases and income tax decreases that Reagan put into place.
In other woreds, it wasn't just that the stated deficit ballooned. Another, and possibly greater, problem was the "off-budget" deficit that came from "borrowing" -- really, stealing -- money from SS that came in as a result of the increased payroll taxes.
