Tax Cuts Take Us Back to the Reagan Years

Re "Bush Offers Tax Cuts to Spur Growth," Jan. 8: Is it just me or is the Bush tax cut plan deja vu all over again? The logic behind his plan rang an out-of-tune bell and, boi-oi-oing, I remembered the trickle-down theory of the Reaganomics era.

Giving certain tax breaks would put extra cash in our pockets. Now available to spend, this money would then trickle down to those in the lowest income groups, the unemployed or both by creating a higher demand for goods and services. Higher production was supposed to translate into a need for new jobs. Instead, we got a countrywide recession that lasted for years and hurt everyone except those at the very top of the food chain.

Are we ever going to learn from past mistakes?

Laurie Holz

Los Angeles


Saying that 92 million Americans would save an average of $1,083 in dividend taxes makes as much sense as saying that Bill Gates and I average $10 million in annual income, and I'm on Social Security.

What are these Republicans trying to pull?

Ronald E. Hohn

Los Angeles


The proposed tax plan looks good to me. I am retired and on a limited, fixed income, own no stocks to get dividends and do not pay any federal income tax, so I would not benefit by the tax cut directly, but I feel that the proposed cuts would stimulate the lagging economy and benefit us all.

I know the younger people struggling to raise a family would benefit from these proposals and would be able to put any extra money to good use, boosting sales of goods and stocks.

Gordon Walker



If dividend income paid to stockholders is no longer to be considered taxable income because the corporations already paid the tax on the profits, then why aren't the gratuities I earn in the service industry afforded the same status?

The tippers have already paid income taxes on the earnings they choose to share with me and millions like me. What am I missing here

Kyle J. Kersten

Los Angeles


Re "A Steep Price for Tax Cuts," editorial, Jan. 5: Inflation averaged about 10% in the four years prior to Reagan becoming president. It averaged about 5% during the eight years he was in office, while long-term Treasury rates fell dramatically. As a result of cuts in marginal tax rates, productivity, job creation and tax revenues boomed while deficits grew larger due mainly to the redressing of neglected military spending.

Where then is the "Rubinomics" connection between deficits and interest rates? Japan has been in near depression for over 10 years, it has massive deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product and interest rates approaching zero. What it has not had is tax cuts. Statists suffer from the hubristic notion that they know better than Adam Smith's "invisible hand." History repeatedly shows they don't.

Kent Schmidt

La Canada

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World