SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (42612)4/7/2010 9:43:26 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Revenue went up, but it would have gone up anyway.

Perhaps. At 70% marginal tax rates high income people were willing to make long shot bets as "investments". In general they could write off the losses and if they happened to strike it richer that was better.

High tax rates encourage antiproductive behaviors. Tax writers felt it necessary to write new laws to limit the losses that could be realized because they wrote laws encouraging bad investment behavior. (Talk about stupid!)

High tax rates lock up investments that should be realized.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Reagan tax cuts were directly responsible for the boom that followed for the next twenty years. To give Clinton credit for the productivity that Reagan unleashed is something that requires idiocy or ignorance.

If you do have a large deficit things get more complex.

It is not complex. When private sector investments are stimulated ala Reagan and Bush 43 it is less harmful than when they are squelched ala Obama.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News