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: TopCat who wrote (359373)	11/19/2007 2:56:44 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587428

"How so?" Umm, let's see. The top rate was over 90% in 1963. Kennedy cut that to 77%. It was later cut to 70%. Given the increase in revenue, those cuts seem to be appropriate. However, the following cuts didn't have the same effect. truthandpolitics.org Now, there are several things that are different. For one, the top rate was lower. For another, where the top rate kicks in was also lowered. So the top rates were different and the the thresholds were different. The fact that they didn't have the same effect should come as no big surprise. The fact that the tax increase during the Clinton years resulted in revenue increases means that the situation was very different. If there needs to be any proof that we are to the left of the Laffer curve, there it is.