My Story—submitted by Jack (Boomer) Boardman

Boomer’s Story My personal hero was my father, William (Bill) Arthur Boardman (1899-1973), an unapologetic Democrat as long I knew him—a strong union man (Lifetime Member of the Sign Painter’s Union Local 789 (now known as “Local 880–Twin Cities Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN… Sign Display and Allied Workers”), even after he owned his own shop.

I self-describe as a HumphreyWellstone Democrat, although I temper that with a helping of pragmatism—I will support whomever ultimately secures the Democratic nomination.

I am concerned about the fact that he current top Marginal Tax Rate is only 39.6% (Forbes)

And now let’s look at the “Marginal Income Tax Rate” from the Eisenhower Administration through the Johnson Administration ABC News:

[…]During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000.

This was nearly the highest tax rate for top earners in the century, just under the 94 percent rate for income over $200,000 instated during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency.

In 1954, the 92 percent marginal rate decreased to 91 percent under Eisenhower. The maximum tax on long-term capital gains was 25 percent — a rate that remained in place for a decade.

The marginal tax rate on the highest regular income bracket fell below 90 percent for the first time in 20 years in 1964 – the first year of Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency.

This decrease put the tax rate at 77 percent for income over $400,000. By the end of Johnson’s administration, the tax rate fell by 1.75 percentage points, but the threshold for income in the highest tax bracket also fell to $200,000.

That changed dramatically during the Reagan Administration: […]Under Reagan, maximum regular income tax rates decreased from nearly 70 percent to 28 percent, but these rates applied to lower-income levels. The earlier rate applied to income over $215,400, while the later rate applied to people with income over $30,950.

In the mid-years of the Reagan administration, the regular income threshold for taxation at the maximum rate initially dropped to $85,600 in 1982, but by 1986 rose to $175,250.

The capital gains tax rate under Reagan started at 20 percent. By the time he left office, the capital gains rate had risen to the 28 percent rate that was in place at the end of the Carter administration.

George W. Bush decreased the regular marginal income tax rate for top earners by over four percentage points during his presidency, while increasing the income level for the highest tax bracket $60,350.

In addition, the highest capital gains tax rate fell near to its current rate of 15 percent.

The Bush tax cuts have remained through the Obama administration, with a 35 percent marginal income tax for the top income bracket and a 15 percent capital gains income tax. However, unless Congress acts by the end of this year, the 2001, 2003 and 2006 tax cuts will expire at the end of December 2012.

Here’s what I’m trying to point-out: “Supply-Side Economics” only benefit the very-wealthy, and if there’s anything left over it might “trickle-down” to the rest of us. R-I-I-I-I-G-H-T…—“Demand-Side Economics” benefit everyone by creating demand for local goods & services—thus creating American jobs to fill those demands.

The years of the Eisenhower through Johnson administration were, perhaps, the halcyon years for the middle, and even lower-class (white) folks, who could live on one income.


From Monday Morning: […] There are currently 13 Fortune 500 companies that don’t pay taxes. We are talking about some of the biggest businesses in the nation. CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS), which earned $1.8 billion in 2014, paid no federal tax, and received a $235 million tax refund. (If you look back at the last five years, one more Fortune 500 giant makes the list. General Electric Co. [NYSE: GE] made $33 billion from 2010-2014, paid no taxes, and received $1.4 billion in refunds.)

And from the conservative Newsmax […]”A sensible starting point should be to critically assess the costs of each of these tax breaks and to take steps to ensure that profitable corporations pay their fair share of U.S. taxes,” the study says.
Corporations who benefit from this country should pay for those benefits!

In my opinion, the last great Republican President was Dwight David Eisenhower (served: Jan 1951- Jan 1961), who in his Farewell Address January 17, 1961 stated […] “…In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex…”

A strong military is important—but—how much is too much—especially weapons systems even the military does not want! Currently, the United States spends $581 Billion on defense as opposed to $532 Billion spent the next nine nations—combined! We are forced to purchase weapons systems we can’t use […]“We are still having to procure systems we don’t need,” (Army Chief of Staff, General) Odierno said, adding that the Army spends “hundreds of millions of dollars on tanks that we simply don’t have the structure for anymore.”

So why are we taxpayers spending all this money on weapons we don’t need?

Overall—it seems to me that our priorities wrong-headed—feeding the upper 1% has done nothing—NOTHING for the middle-class—it has only served the very-wealthy.

About sgtmajcarl

A little crusty on the outside...but inside?
This entry was posted in Carl's Corner, Old Men & Coffee Shops, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to My Story—submitted by Jack (Boomer) Boardman

  1. lhalvor says:

    I love how major media like CBS and GE (NBC) benefit. Small wonder true news gets slanted.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Chris Shouse says:

    We the People are nothing but Pawns On The Chessboard to be moved and manipulated by the whims of the Ultra Rich. There has to be a change and neither the Republicans or the Democrats will do it. They are cut from the same cloth of different colors. They both want our money, they just have different ways of spending it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack Boardman says:

      We the People are nothing but Pawns On The Chessboard to be moved and manipulated by the whims of the Ultra Rich. There has to be a change and neither the Republicans or the Democrats will do it.

      I agree completely with this much of your comment. With some rare exceptions, members of both parties are bought and paid for by the super-rich through super-pac money. This is largely the result of the “Citizens United” ruling by the Supreme Court. Governments (all governments) spend the people’s money; it’s how they spend it that matters… With no government at all, we’d likely devolve into uncontrolled anarchy. :-/

      Liked by 1 person

      • Chris Shouse says:

        I hope it does not devolve into anarchy. We have witnessed countries in the last years throw off their oppressive governments and it has not been pretty. There will be a revolution at some point. Will I be alive to see it? I do not know. I saw the change in the Nixion era if I am not mistaken when all the money first went to the Feds to be doled back out to the States. I was a kid, but I felt the change in people’s attitude even then. This may get real conspiratorial but, I also believe that factions within the government encourage hatred between races. If we are busy hating each other, we do not pay attention to what they are doing. Also, there always has to be a war on something within the country. An enemy we can focus our hate on. McCarthy did a good job with the Russians. We have THE WAR ON POVERTY and then we had THE WAR ON DRUGS! What a joke all it did was put more money into funds we never knew what it was spent on. Black OPS perhaps?

        Liked by 1 person

        • sgtmajcarl says:

          Oooooo! I’m not sure I agree completely, BUT…the notion that there has to be a “War on…” whatever is a disturbing metaphor. I find it interesting that the so-called “Red states” in the south get way more money back from the feds than a “Blue” state like Minnesota. WE pay for their inability to take care of their own business. :-/


    • sgtmajcarl says:

      You speak some TRUTH! 😀

      Liked by 1 person

Speak your mind!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s