From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This has been mentioned by a media organization:


Tax revenue section[edit]

My qualm is with the following claim: "According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study,[43] the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP)." The claim that Reagan's tax cuts lead to increased revenue (which is not what the Treasury Department's study actually said, btw) is pretty dubious, as tax revenue had increased more as a percent of GDP the previous 4 decades (it went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's). Can we just get rid of that sentence?

ObiBinks (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, without any objections, then, I'm going to get rid of that sentence. If you have a problem with it, I'd be happy to discuss it here.
ObiBinks (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More Charts[edit]

Shows income tax rate, revenue and job creation

Shows income tax rate and tax revenue rate under Reagan &as=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxation of Social Security Benefits were conceived after the election of Ronald Reagan[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and don't have time to read about protocol and procedure. Forgive my Wikepedia ignorance.

I would question that that the taxation of Social Security Income began in 1977. The citation that is provided is This website says it's resource on public policy for "free thinkers." This term may signify a broad range of perspectives and does not preclude bias.

The idea of taxation of SS benefits was initiated by the Greenspan Commission which was appointed after Reagan was elected and therefor not during the Carter administration. The information below concerning the taxation of Social Security benefits is dircty from the Social Security website and claims the following:

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremoz (talkcontribs) 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Review Section on Keynesian Interpretation[edit]

I feel this section is largely biased and unscholarly.

"In this view, Reaganomics was not a refutation but rather a confirmation of Keynesian economics: the expansion was primarily a recovery from the 1982 recession, which was created by the textbook Keynesian monetary policy of Volcker,[citation needed] not the tax policy of Reagan. At the start of the Reagan administration, inflation was high. The textbook Keynesian prescription for high inflation is high interest rates (contractionary monetary policy),[citation needed] designed to create a sustained period of high unemployment to break the price/wage spiral. Volcker did precisely this, creating the 1982 recession, then lowered interest rates once inflation was under control, resulting in economic growth and the unemployment rate coming down gradually."

This entire paragraph seems to either need to be largely expanded on or removed as it seems to be nothing but an unsourced criticism of Reaganomics.

"Krugman argues that there is nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan – because unemployment was reducing from a high peak, it is entirely consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases while inflation remains low – the expansion was a cyclical recovery, but did not feature an increase in the structural rate of growth as its supply-side proponents argued."

I feel this paragraph has potential but should require statistics or at the least citation.

The final paragraph is well done, though the last sentence should be elaborated upon or sourced in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspuhler (talkcontribs) 01:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman citations[edit]

Mlebauer (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Why is Krugman cited so prominently in an article about Reaganomics? As an ardent political opponent, not just in the sphere of economics, that prominence seems to violate the neutral point of view. If Krugman must be mentioned, his views should be qualified as from Reagan's most ardent critic among economists. It would be more balanced to use a Keynesian economist with less strident opposition to Reagan's politics to provide a counterpoint.

On that note, we should remove the CATO institute "study". It is a well known fact that they are not a scholarly source of work, they are paid to find whatever conclusions the donors instruct them to find. (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Krugman - He's actually a centrist. The fact that he is criticizing Reaganomics should be interpreted as reflecting that our growth rate dropped by 1/3 since 1980 and our national debt went from 30% of GDP when he was elected to over 60% of GDP by the time Clinton came to power. It shouldn't be interpreted as meaning he is some massive liberal who is lying. A real liberal would claim that starting the study of economics by assuming equilibrium is like starting the study of football by assuming no passing. A real liberal could tell you that the only first world countries to become first world since the classical consensus arrived in the middle 1800s have been countries like South Korea and Japan that completely ignored the classical consensus (and basically did the opposite). Paul Krugman has claimed none of this and is basically a monetarist who believes that Government spending is a necessary counter-cyclical tool for fighting recessions. Really mainstream, moderate stuff. (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


Wow is all I can say. Such a respectible man and the pathetic liberal wikipedia tries to make him look bad in the wiki with assinine statements like "During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP[3] after inheriting an annual deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980 under president Carter.[3] The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2]" Everyone knows that both of those factors were resultant form the democratic run congress, not from policies promoted by Reagan. It is also sad to see that no one put the fact that when he cut taxes by 20% it double the federal budget within a year. Let's stop being biased and get our facts straight, and if we are going to put useless stones of informaiton in the lead, at least tell the whole truth and attribute it to the designer and not some shtick about how Reagan's policies didn't actually work when they clearly did.

and all I can say is I am appalled by your commands. Reagan as a president and his economics were by far the most disastrous of the last century. If you are genuinely interested in the issues, get yourself educated first instead of embarrassing yourself with such baseless opinions. --386-DX (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While there may be merit to the 20% figure you mentioned, a more important figure by contrast is how Reagan's tax cuts facilitated in tripling the federal debt of the US during his term. Adjusted for inflation, our federal debt went from under a trillion (where it had been in real dollars for about nearly 200 years) to roughly three trillion dollars. This makes your point rather moot, for the purposes of summarizing the financial consequences of Reaganomics for the readers of this entry. Therewillbefact (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
He was respectable as a person, but most of that 'fantastic' leadership was conducted by a... professional actor, who was often the hero of whatever flick he was in. His economic and foreign policies were disasters. Reaganomics were the real catalyst of the destruction of the American middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with your comments, I think it would be more productive to substantiate your claims with verifiable data if you want to put Reaganomics into appropriate perspective. Thanks, Therewillbefact (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Instead of the words regulation and deregulation, can we actually get examples of the policies that ronald reagan implemented that actually were deregulation, instead of just saying that he did deregulate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the need to clarify. The analysis chapter has three authors claiming Reagan did not significantly increase deregulation and only one author who disagrees. What is more, that author does not have any arguments besides the number of pages in the Federal Register which declined during Reagan's presidency. I can't believe someone cited the venerable Friedman with this pseudo argument. --Juda loeb (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning voodoo economics in the lead[edit]

There was no mention of "voodoo economics" as another commonly-used pejorative term for Reaganomics. I've gone ahead and revised the lead with this edit. Therewillbefact (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Voodoo economics still leads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image[edit]

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

EIU Quality-of-Life Index[edit]

Took out the text: In 1988, the United States ranked first in the world in the Economist Intelligence Unit "quality of life index" and third in the Economic Freedom of the World Index.[1] The blogger in this source is misinformed; the EUI did not publish a Quality-of-Life index until 2005. See Puts the source under WP:QS, and not acceptable in this article. Gnassar (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Star Parker (December 17, 2012).Tea Partiers must hang as a reference[edit]

This website appears to be entirely self-published, and is not RS by definition. A blog or similar site may have info that is correct and reliable (e.g., my personal website says "the sun is the center of our solar system and is very hot", but no one ever cites it.) We are required by WP:SOURCES to look at the publisher of the material. is no more reliable than I am. Other sources (from which got its data from) should be used. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the website and do not view it as just some blog. The site is quite rigorous in its usage of data and it clearly states where the data is coming from. The site is also clearly more rigorous than most news websites which often just throw facts around without giving clear links to the original data. I think we are going to disagree on this topic and should get a second opinion or take the issue to the reliable notice board. Guest2625 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I did post at WP:Reliable sources/ Getting only one response in 46 hours, I decided to do removals of the source (as I did here) with the object of raising interest (such as yours). As for the website, I think the sources that the "blogger" uses are better and they are the ones that should be used. He simply is not a publisher and is not any more rigorous than I am. So, let's see what opinions and assessments come in from other editors. (Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I just now removed as a reference and tagged the sentence as cn. The website is SPS and not WP:RS. Here is the archive page on the RSN mentioned above: [1]. Chantrill's website is SPS. He has self-published a book, but for him to be used as an expert his book must be published by a third-party publisher. According to WorldCat, his books are not stocked by any library. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

some protest somewhere[edit]

I removed the following addition as irrelevant trivia:

In 1981 and 1982, the Community for Creative Non-Violence set up tent cities dubbed "Reaganville" (an allusion to the "Hoovervilles" of the Great Depression) in Lafayette Park near the White House to protest the growing problem.

First, it is unsourced. Second, barring a source that says otherwise, i see no indication that this tent city protest is in any way an important aspect of Reganomics. So per wp:BRD, I am reverting the bold additon and we can discuss if you like. Bonewah (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Did Reagan simplify tax codes?[edit]

Millions of words in the US tax code and federal tax regulations, 1955-2005 according to The Tax Foundation ( [1=income tax code; 2=other tax code; 3=income tax regulations; 4=other tax regulations; solid line= total]

As of 2017-01-11, the section on "Historical context" includes the claim that, "Reagan enacted lower marginal tax rates as well as simplified income tax codes". No citation is given, and it seems to contradict the accompanying plot of the numbers of words in federal tax code and regulation: If he actually simplified the tax code, why did the number of words in tax code and regulations INCREASE FASTER between 1975 and 1995 than before or since? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is frequently cited as the last successful attempt to simplify the tax code. I added two references in the "Policies" section. CatPath (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy, regarding your recent addition [2], even the Tax Foundation says that the 1986 Act simplified the tax code. See [3] and [4]. The following addition to the article appears to be original research since the Tax Foundation doesn't talk about this apparent inconsistency (unless I missed it in their website): "The claims of tax simplification seem inconsistent with the fact that the number of words in federal tax code and regulations grew faster between 1975 and 1995 than before or since, according to the counts from the conservative Tax Foundation; see the accompanying plot." Without reading the tax code ourselves, we can't really say why the number of words in the tax code continued to increase. CatPath (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)