republicans figure but figures dont lie

[dherd]

For all the backslapping over a job well done, however, Republicans are proving notably more reluctant to acknowledge the true impact of the tax changes that Reagan wrought.
That’s because Reagan’s cuts didn’t quite work as advertised.F
For one in two Americans, though — those in the bottom half of the income pile — income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
By 1988, they were taking in $21,614, on average, $8 more than in 1980, after inflation.
The sliver of America that did get ahead was, you guessed it, the one at the tippy top: the richest Americans, those in the highest 1 percent of the income distribution. Their earnings grew by about 6 percent a year.
President George W. Bush passed two rounds of tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, arguing that the United States had a budget surplus “because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs.”
during Mr. Bush’s two terms, the average income of the bottom half of Americans slid from $17,827 to $17,473, accounting for inflation.
he bottom half of Americans fared better under President Bill Clinton, who actually raised taxes. On average, their incomes rose by a fifth over his two terms, after taxes and transfers, a gain of over 2 percent per year, after accounting for inflation. Their lot also improved during President Barack Obama’s administration, census data shows.
Over a 34-year stretch starting in 1980, a period during which the nation’s top income tax rate plunged from 70 percent to as low as 28 percent, settling at just under 40 percent today, the grand Republican promise of faster growth has proved to be, if not necessarily false, at least irrelevant for the very segment of the electorate for which it was directed.

In 2014, the economy was 2.5 times larger than it was in 1980, but the bottom half of the population made only 21 percent more, on average, even after including government benefits. America’s middle — families earning more than the bottom 30 percent but less than the top 30 percent — gained only 50 percent in those 34 years. By contrast, the after-tax incomes of Americans in the top 1 percent — families like President Trump’s or Senator Bob Corker’s — tripled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/economy/tax-cuts-incomes.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/politics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

 

[dherd]

Over a 34-year stretch starting in 1980, a period during which the nation’s top income tax rate plunged from 70 percent to as low as 28 percent, settling at just under 40 percent today, the grand Republican promise of faster growth has proved to be, if not necessarily false, at least irrelevant for the very segment of the electorate for which it was directed.

In 2014, the economy was 2.5 times larger than it was in 1980, but the bottom half of the population made only 21 percent more, on average, even after including government benefits. America’s middle — families earning more than the bottom 30 percent but less than the top 30 percent — gained only 50 percent in those 34 years. By contrast, the after-tax incomes of Americans in the top 1 percent — families like President Trump’s or Senator Bob Corker’s — tripled.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

 

[dherd]

Americans fared better under President Bill Clinton, who actually raised taxes. On average, their incomes rose by a fifth over his two terms, after taxes and transfers, a gain of over 2 percent per year, after accounting for inflation. Their lot also improved during President Barack Obama’s administration, census data shows.

 

[ohio herd]

now that's funny even if it might be photo shopped