Columnist wrong on tax reform

To the editor:

Mr. Ryan's "Tax Reform (i.e. tax cuts)" column was in part a response to a letter (which was not published) I wrote responding to his previous column accusing president Obama of endangering the economy by increasing taxes. 

The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — from 35% to 39.6% — even asking if that makes him a socialist. But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%. 

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%! Shocking, right?  

For all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track. 

Far from destroying the economy and bringing on another great recession, the 91% top tax rate under President Eisenhower financed the creation of the interstate highway system that has been crumbling since the introduction of Reaganomics and paid for higher education of returning war heros of WWII instead of having many unable to find jobs upon returning as is the case today. 

The top tax rate when President Clinton left office, leaving a budget surplus for President Bush, was 39.6%. President Bush, as did President Reagan, by a combination of tax cuts and massive unfunded expenditures managed to add more to the national debt than all previous presidents combined. His unnecessary and illegitimate war in Iraq that the so called liberal media practically 100% supported (and was conveniently not included in his budgets) will have cost the country well over a trillion dollars when the bill is added up . That is enough money to pay unemployment insurance for every worker whose jobs were lost thanks to Bush's reinstitution of smoke and mirror Reganomics for ten years."

In his latest attack on allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, he points out that the "share of taxes burden borne by the top 1% climbed from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% of all personal income but by 1988 their share jumped to 27.5%, a 10% increase. "

What he doesn't point out is that during that period their incomes (in 1981 dollars)  increased by nearly 50% while those of average Americans dropped by almost 3%?

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates. Income of the top 1 percent of Americans now exceeds the previous peak of 23.9% reported prior to great depression, up significantly from 19.8 percent in 2004 and far more than double their share of income prior to institution of Reagonomics. 

I will close with tow questions. 

1. How has trickle down economics, with tax cuts for the rich combined with increased spending worked for you? 

2. How many of you ex DHL workers who can't find jobs have pleaded with your representatives to oppose extending unemployment benefits because it would add to the deficit and discourage you from seeking employment? 

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg

To the editor:

Mr. Ryan's "Tax Reform (i.e. tax cuts)" column was in part a response to a letter (which was not published) I wrote responding to his previous column accusing president Obama of endangering the economy by increasing taxes. 

The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — from 35% to 39.6% — even asking if that makes him a socialist. But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%. 

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%! Shocking, right?  

For all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track. 

Far from destroying the economy and bringing on another great recession, the 91% top tax rate under President Eisenhower financed the creation of the interstate highway system that has been crumbling since the introduction of Reaganomics and paid for higher education of returning war heros of WWII instead of having many unable to find jobs upon returning as is the case today. 

The top tax rate when President Clinton left office, leaving a budget surplus for President Bush, was 39.6%. President Bush, as did President Reagan, by a combination of tax cuts and massive unfunded expenditures managed to add more to the national debt than all previous presidents combined. His unnecessary and illegitimate war in Iraq that the so called liberal media practically 100% supported (and was conveniently not included in his budgets) will have cost the country well over a trillion dollars when the bill is added up . That is enough money to pay unemployment insurance for every worker whose jobs were lost thanks to Bush's reinstitution of smoke and mirror Reganomics for ten years."

In his latest attack on allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, he points out that the "share of taxes burden borne by the top 1% climbed from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% of all personal income but by 1988 their share jumped to 27.5%, a 10% increase. "

What he doesn't point out is that during that period their incomes (in 1981 dollars)  increased by nearly 50% while those of average Americans dropped by almost 3%?

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates. Income of the top 1 percent of Americans now exceeds the previous peak of 23.9% reported prior to great depression, up significantly from 19.8 percent in 2004 and far more than double their share of income prior to institution of Reagonomics. 

I will close with two questions. 

1. How has trickle down economics, with tax cuts for the rich combined with increased spending, worked for you? 

2. How many of you ex DHL workers who can't find jobs have pleaded with your representatives to oppose extending unemployment benefits because it would add to the deficit and discourage you from seeking employment? 

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg