BolivarianHero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 12:52 AM
Original message |
JFK was the first President to cut taxes on the rich... |
Drunken Irishman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 12:54 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Because the tax rate for the rich was something like 90%. |
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 12:57 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The top tax rate was 91% when Kennedy took office. His proposal was to lower it to 74% |
|
It's not totally accurate to say he cut taxes. He was, actually, murdered before the bill passed and Johnson signed it in 1964. His actual intent was to collect more from the rich because, although he lowered the rate, he closed a boat load of the loopholes.
|
PSPS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. You're right. Lowered top marginal rate but closed loopholes to compensate. |
|
It was saint reagan that started the "tradition" that "only little people pay taxes" by essentially eliminating taxes on billionaires.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Yep. And every election year the RW makes big hay of "Kennedy knew cutting taxes was the right thing |
|
to do" without ever bothering to mention the top rate is now 56% lower than it was when he was elected. And no one in the whore media ever calls them on that.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I always see people state the top marginal tax rate wasn't really 90% because of "loopholes". What were they and how significant were they? Did they really make 90% and 74% just about the same?
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. I don't know. I was 9 years old. I just know that is what his position was |
|
Have not read the changes to the tax code from 1964. It's my impression from reading the writings of those familiar with it that it did close some loopholes. But I can't swear to that. I just know it was Kennedy's intent.
The most irritating thing for me, though, is listening to R's talk about it like Kennedy was a supply sider. For God's sake he proposed lowering the rate to 74%. It's 35% now and they act like we're taking food out of their mouths.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:14 AM
Response to Original message |
6. WWII was largely paid for n/t |
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. Yep. And helped the rest of the world rebuild. nt |
Happy Friend
(58 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
changed the tax code to encourage socially helpful investments. Read the book Battling Wall Street for more.
|
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-09-10 01:45 AM
Response to Original message |
10. And we saw how the rich repaid him for *that*... |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 05:09 AM
Response to Original message |