ThinkProgress/YouTube
In another blow to the image of Pres. Ronald Reagan that lives in the minds of some of today's Republicans, Pres. Reagan gave a speech in 1985 calling for the end to tax loopholes for millionaires. Yes, really.
This video was released today by ThinkProgress and in it Reagan says in part:
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy."
The video draws the obvious comparison between Reagan's remarks and those made by Pres. Barack Obama when he unveiled the details of the "Buffett rule."
AP Photo/Cheryl Senter
Manchester, N.H., Sept. 28
Reagan's remarks also juxtapose well with this New York Times article from Sunday's front page about Massachusetts Governor Willard M. Romney and how he differs from presidential candidate Willard M. Romney on corporate tax loopholes. The salient passage reads as follows:
Mitt Romney, a Republican with high-caliber corporate credentials, had run for governor pledging to sweep aside barriers to business and act as the state’s “top salesman.”
But just a few months after Mr. Romney took office in 2003, what he delivered seemed anything but friendly to the C.E.O. crowd: a bill to financial firms for what they saw as $110 million in new corporate taxes — and a promise of more to come.
... For the next three years, the Romney administration relentlessly scoured the tax code for more loopholes, extracting hundreds of millions of corporate dollars to help close budget gaps in a state with a struggling economy. It was only after Mr. Romney was gearing up in 2005 for a possible White House bid that he backed away from some of his most assertive tax enforcement proposals amid intensifying complaints from local companies and conservative antitax groups in Washington.
So Romney does have something in common with Pres. Reagan. Too bad for him it's the real Reagan and not the selective-memory version of Reagan that so many Republican presidential candidates love to talk about.
Leave a Comment:
Yes we should close loopholes in the tax code or maybe we should do away with the current tax code altogether? I still don't get why we are signing free trade agreements and lowering tariffs which effectively is lowering taxes on foriegn millionaires and billionaires. Why tax any American before we start taxing through tariffs those individuals that are taking advantage of us?
rusty, kurt, greg5,
please comment on reagan's remarks.
Suzette- I only wish Obama would adopt the same strategy. I would support him if he did.
30 years later, when a Reagan millionaire is probably an Obama multi-millionaire, Obama wants to tax at $200K. Further, Reagan is talking about lowering the tax levels and eliminating loopholes. I'll support all simplification efforts Obama puts forward. Get rid of deductions and lower the rates. Mortgage interest included. Donations to charity. In fact- since you probably hate imports, do something about them. Get rid of Corporate Taxes completely- replace them with a national sales tax. Not a VAT- you want to encourage Value Add. Put a sales tax on absolutely everything. The elimination of corporate taxes would encourage on-shore production and would discourage consumption. It would implicitly encourage the creation of capital.
If you want a national program- then pay for it. Bush should have instituted a way to pay for Rx, Obama should have instituted a way to pay for Obamacare that didn't drive cost of employing. Take SS- it had minor flaws to begin with, but it was basically paid for. At least 3 things happened though. 1) Lots of programs have been added with being paid for, 2) Under LBJ, the supposed "lockbox" was tossed assunder and SS became part of the operating budget as his way to pay for Viet Nam and Entitlement increases, and 3) much improved health care (somehow, it was done without Obamacare) increased life expectancies. The minor adjustments that have been made haven't been able to keep up. At this point, we will see an explosion that makes state pension obligation shortfalls look like childs play.
You need to read the article on this at snopes. Social Security is not now, nor has it ever been tossed into the general fund. Excess funds are, by law, invested in US Treasury bonds. Al Gore, during his presidential bid, did want to put these funds into a 'lockbox,' which is really a pretty silly idea, when you stop and think about it.
Just how is that supposed to work anyway? There's a huge vault somewhere with trillions of dollars stored in it, and each month armed guards either bring or remove truck loads of cash? Does that make sense to anyone?
Chain emails are never to be believed, and this one in particular is odious. Snopes is a good source, just in case you ever want to check the info contained in one these.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
@Haddie
The only way to fix social security is to take off the $106K cap and charge a 0.25% flat rate on all income. If you want to stimulate the economy then why wouldn't you pay seniors more money instead of current discussions of reform by both parties? Seems to me that there is an avenue that would put one political issue out of the way and provide instantly millions of dollars in stimulous to the economy. Guess it is better politics to keep them scared.
Still don't get why we would cut tariffs and sign free trade agreements when we could place a flat rate of 10% on imports and pay for both social security and medicare.
Hadie- Snopes also tells you that the kid stealing the penquin in his backpack isn't true. We'll chalk both of those anecdotes up in the irrelevant pile inasmuch as I have no clue what mass e-mail you are even talking about.
Now- to the point- I am assuming you are saying that the monies into and out of the SS account were not added into the Annual budget dring LBJ's reign? I believe you are very wrong on that. Do you believe that nothing has been added to SS over the years? I think SSI, survivor benefits, etc- just to name a few, have been added without being paid for. And finally- are you saying people aren't living longer? A little research shows they are- and yes, ages have been tweaked. Those were the 3 points that I made and you seemingly want to refute them. I also made a summation point that if SS isn't changed in some fundamental way, either funding, or benefits, or a combination- that we will have a serious shortfall- very few paying in vs those receiving benefits. Now- don't try to label me as a ponzi freak because that isn't what I'm saying.
Good to know you're not in with the ponzi scheme freaks, and yes, I had mistakenly placed you in that category. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Social Security has been tweaked over the years. It's supposed to be in order to stay viable for 75 years out, and we are due again for some adjustments, since it's only good until 2035 under current conditions. Lifting the cap, or eliminating it altogether would go a long way toward helping the issue, and further raising of the eligibility age shouldn't be necessary. (see the link below)
The Johnson administration did put Social Security transactions into what is called the 'unified budget', but that was simply an accounting gimmick that put all government into a single budget, and it really didn't affect the trust fund operations. That ended in 1990, however, and Social Security was once again taken 'off-budget.'
Apparently the requirement for investing excess SS funds into US Treasury bonds has been there since the inception of the program. I'd certainly rather see the funds invested there than on Wall Street, and one only has to remember 2008 to understand why. I also understand why WS would love to manage our money for us, and that's exactly what the ultimate goal of all this misinformation is.
Below is a pretty good article on what could be done to extend SS beyond the current 2035 projection of the shortfall in funding the program, and that's even with current horrible economy. I don't normally recommend blog sites such as this, but there are citations on this page, and it does follow what the more familiar sources say.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html
Haddie- I'm not for sure if this is rumor, innuendo or fact, but maybe you could comment on it. With 2011, and proposed 2012, part of the jobs bill and whatever legislation it was in 2011, with t he reduction of the traduitional SS payroll tax on employees, will benefits be reduced due to the amount contributed being reduced? Is it possible because someone has put less in due to this decrease, that less will be paid out? I would hope it is true, else your projection on 2035 (which was 2037, but continuously gets brought closer) will come forward. Again- my thoughts are that I am less concerned with what the Government provides, as to the point that I want it paid for- and preferably paid for by the entire cross section of population.