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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (287412)	5/10/2006 11:35:35 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572911

The issue wasn't what the rates was from 1951 to 1964. It was the rate "pre-Reagan". While 1951 to 1964 certainly qualifies as before Reagan, "pre-Reagan" would seem to imply before Reagan's cuts and the top rate was 70% then. But 50% on incomes above $300,000 might not be out of line That would be very out of line. in a time of war. During WW II, the war Bush LOVES to compare Iraq with, the top income tax rate was 94%! FDR believed in trying to PAY for his war. At 94% (and perhaps at 50%) the tax rate is too high to maximize government revenue. The current war is not close to WWII in terms of costs. During WWII the US had less than half of its current population, but it fielded an army that dwarfed our current armed forces. Something like 40% of the GDP was spent on the war effort, compared to maybe 1% on the Iraq war.