Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Read this, then ask yourself: Isn't it amazing the riots haven't started yet? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)31. Thanks. More:
Reagan fooled people with his bullshit tax increases. Yeah, he increased revenue, but it was on the backs of low-income Americans and seniors, including taxing unemployment benefits.
<...>
Another Reagan proposal that came in for criticism was the plan to tax all unemployment compensation. At present, such compensation - stemming from a job-related injury or illness - is taxed only if the recipient's adjusted gross income exceeds $12,000, or $18,000 for a married couple filing jointly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/30/business/reagan-s-tax-plan-one-way-or-another-plan-will-touch-just-about-everyone.html
Another Reagan proposal that came in for criticism was the plan to tax all unemployment compensation. At present, such compensation - stemming from a job-related injury or illness - is taxed only if the recipient's adjusted gross income exceeds $12,000, or $18,000 for a married couple filing jointly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/30/business/reagan-s-tax-plan-one-way-or-another-plan-will-touch-just-about-everyone.html
<...>
During the 1970s, some policy studies had shown that the proportion of wages replaced by UC benefits on an after-tax basis was large enough to erode a claimants work incentive.8 Taxation of UC benefits served to reduce the degree of after-tax wage replacement and reduce the work disincentive effect. However, UC benefits of lower-income claimants remained untaxed because their total income was under the tax threshold (i.e., their standard deduction and personal exemptions offset their income).
In 1982, Congress lowered the AGI thresholds for taxation of UC benefits. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) reduced those thresholds to $12,000 for single filers and $18,000 for joint filers.9 A primary motivation of this legislation was to raise revenue, but it left in place a policy of protecting lower-income claimants from taxation of UC benefits.10
Congress made UC benefits fully taxable in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), effective for benefits received after December 31, 1986. Although this action reversed the original policy of taxing UC benefits only above an AGI threshold, it occurred in the context of a law that removed many low-income filers from the tax rolls, lowered the marginal tax rates for the majority of taxpayers, and expanded eligibility for the earned income credit. The rationale for full taxation of UC benefits was to treat UC benefits the same as wages and to eliminate the work disincentive caused by favorable tax treatment for UC benefits relative to wages.11
Concern about claimants cash flow problems caused by the lack of tax withholding from UC benefits arose during the 1990-1991 recession. P.L. 102-318 required states to inform all new claimants of their responsibility to pay income tax on UC benefits and to provide them with information on how to file estimated quarterly tax payments. In 1994, P.L. 103-465 required states to withhold federal income tax from UC benefits if a claimant requested withholding, and permitted states to withhold state and local income taxes. P.L. 103-465 set the federal withholding rate at 15% of the gross benefit payment amount. The federal withholding rate was changed to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P.L. 107- 16) effective August 7, 2001.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21356.pdf
During the 1970s, some policy studies had shown that the proportion of wages replaced by UC benefits on an after-tax basis was large enough to erode a claimants work incentive.8 Taxation of UC benefits served to reduce the degree of after-tax wage replacement and reduce the work disincentive effect. However, UC benefits of lower-income claimants remained untaxed because their total income was under the tax threshold (i.e., their standard deduction and personal exemptions offset their income).
In 1982, Congress lowered the AGI thresholds for taxation of UC benefits. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) reduced those thresholds to $12,000 for single filers and $18,000 for joint filers.9 A primary motivation of this legislation was to raise revenue, but it left in place a policy of protecting lower-income claimants from taxation of UC benefits.10
Congress made UC benefits fully taxable in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), effective for benefits received after December 31, 1986. Although this action reversed the original policy of taxing UC benefits only above an AGI threshold, it occurred in the context of a law that removed many low-income filers from the tax rolls, lowered the marginal tax rates for the majority of taxpayers, and expanded eligibility for the earned income credit. The rationale for full taxation of UC benefits was to treat UC benefits the same as wages and to eliminate the work disincentive caused by favorable tax treatment for UC benefits relative to wages.11
Concern about claimants cash flow problems caused by the lack of tax withholding from UC benefits arose during the 1990-1991 recession. P.L. 102-318 required states to inform all new claimants of their responsibility to pay income tax on UC benefits and to provide them with information on how to file estimated quarterly tax payments. In 1994, P.L. 103-465 required states to withhold federal income tax from UC benefits if a claimant requested withholding, and permitted states to withhold state and local income taxes. P.L. 103-465 set the federal withholding rate at 15% of the gross benefit payment amount. The federal withholding rate was changed to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P.L. 107- 16) effective August 7, 2001.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21356.pdf
<...>
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
- more -
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
- more -
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. [4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Read this, then ask yourself: Isn't it amazing the riots haven't started yet? [View all]
JaneyVee
Feb 2014
OP
2 things I know that went away was deducting credit card interest & state sales tax. nt
7962
Feb 2014
#20
Second worst... The millions of working people who voted for him come in at number one to me.
abq e streeter
Feb 2014
#51
Quite true, many Americans leave their brains disengaged when they vote. Never, does it
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#55
Yep, like WTF, they get excited about the trivial and don't care about the water. As Idiocracy
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#111
Perhaps you could help by telling us where to find the WVA petition if it hasn't already been closed
IrishAyes
Feb 2014
#153
Absolutely. I begged - begged my union coworkers to not vote for him. Then they got upset at PATCO.
freshwest
Feb 2014
#116
Those were the members of "The Greatest Generation." They wanted to go back to "how things were."
Ikonoklast
Feb 2014
#146
It's the republican way, they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Republicans are
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#39
Yes! There are definite downsides to something like this. Also, it would open the door
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#149
Oh, yes, there would then be the "War on Brains!" Humans IMO just aren't ready
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#184
The fact that the ones with money a the ones who purchased their loyalty and service, of course. nt
tblue37
Feb 2014
#60
Their true god, Ayn Rand, told them that good producers work harder when rewarded,
IrishAyes
Feb 2014
#155
Obama doesn't "admire" Reagan, he's rightly pointed out that Reagan was popular. And many DU'ers
KittyWampus
Feb 2014
#92
The poster, who you jumped in to defend, says Obama does not admire Reagan.
former9thward
Feb 2014
#137
People forget just how divided the party was. The "Solid South" had their own agenda.
Ikonoklast
Feb 2014
#148
President Obama cannot get blood from the GOP turnips. The reason behind the
underthematrix
Feb 2014
#109
"it has to comes from a new party outside of the Democratic Party at this point." True.
polichick
Feb 2014
#162
When peaceful protest is brutally crushed, you can bet the next ones will be violent beyond belief.
Warpy
Feb 2014
#83
OWS planted the seed. They changed the conversation, made us think and speak of
alfredo
Feb 2014
#114
It's one way to survive IMO. Today, the top priority in the US for most is survival. As our
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#35
Perhaps for most people. But please excuse me from that lineup. It's a good plan, but
IrishAyes
Feb 2014
#159
I actually did that at one point as a single mom...it didn't work out well at all but oh, so what...
CTyankee
Feb 2014
#65
Exactly. Aside his sociopathy, my ex and I would've made a great team. He made $ hand over fist
IrishAyes
Feb 2014
#161
I am reading Chris Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class" and that's what he says also.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#8
That all sounds swell but how do you get corrupt people to reform themselves?
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#170
This sounds like my daughter with two kids under 8 and out of work for two years.
kelliekat44
Feb 2014
#19
You know you really shouldn't worry your pretty mind with things like this..
SomethingFishy
Feb 2014
#67
Thr Reagan worship from the Republican party is insane, and explains a lot about
maddiemom
Feb 2014
#68
Did you know Mike Malloy read your post on the air? I heard him 2/9 around 1 am I guess
progree
Feb 2014
#118
Its the same with men, too. From six figures to mid teens. It happened quick: I turned fifty.
marble falls
Feb 2014
#134
Where was this person when she did "have"? She'll have to take a number and get in line
RadiationTherapy
Feb 2014
#143
That is the best article on the situation of the best and brightest in America today
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#164