Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (117388)	11/12/2000 3:38:12 PM
From: Robert Salasidis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The top marginal rate is still much lower that the 70% it once was. My arguement pertains to $$ being invested to create jobs. That is made by individuals who have the $ to do this. Accumulating wealth through hardwork would be rather difficult with a 70% top marginal tax rate, and thus investment suffers. Reagan flattened the tax rates. It is in my opinion the main reason that our Canadian economy has lagged the US over the past 15 years and has taken our currency down with it (our top marghinal rates are in the low 50% range, and kick in after only 60000$). All other things being equal, Canada should have been able to have a much better fiscal situation compared to the US as we are net exporters of oil and natural resources (a situation not present in the US).

To: Scumbria who wrote (117388)	11/12/2000 3:51:29 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

Scumbria: <ito keep the Government from falling into bankruptcy after the 1981 tax cut and spending increases> It is worthy of note to remember exactly why the Government became financially embarrassed. Reagan had deregulated the savings and loans to allow them to engage in the business of real estate in slam dunk contravention of the Glass Stegall act in 1981/2. But this would have been acceptable BUT for, and I am just noodling here, the Democracts in Congress that did not increase the Premiums they paid for FDIC insurance, or eliminate FDIC insurance for these business ventures. I have to assume that Reagan would have corrected this problem, if he had been given the chance. Now you had the Bank and Savings and Loans rockin' and rollin' in the Real Estate business, and making good contributions to some senators. You remember the DiConcini, etc. (and your buddy, McCain) scandals which were made prominent by Keating and Oaktree savings and Loan. That meant that the government was gaurenteing the business efforts of the Banks and S/Ls. And politly put, "crowding out" the efforts of private citizens in those same businesses. It cost the Government well over a Trillion Dollars to bailout that Brillant strategy. That money came from the taxpayers in the form of the Tax Reform act of 1986. Notice any simularity to the recent legislation allowing Banks to get into the Stock business??