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.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (2538)	11/7/2008 11:05:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3816

tim did you even look at the lower income tax brackets during the 1950s? Again, what's your point. What about those lower income tax brackets do you see as both significant and relevant and why do you see it that way? and dont you think there have not been always loop holes......... 1 - There where more before the tax reform in the 80s. 2 - Loopholes matter more with higher rates as people will jump through more hoops, and spend more, to avoid the higher rates. 3 - Your comment isn't that relevant. Sure there have been loopholes almost all the time, but that doesn't change the fact that the effective rates paid by almost everyone back then where not nearly so high as the marginal tax rates would lead you to believe. ..i posted the income tax levels to prove taxes were higher ...much higher That's a specific fact, not a relevant argument that demonstrates how specific facts lead to conclusions. Facts rarely speak for themselves, you have to show how they are meaningful, important, and relevant, and how they lead to the conclusion your trying to make, or disprove the assertion you disagree with. The issue was not "where marginal tax rates higher in the 50s". Anyone who knows anything about the history of taxes in the US already knew they where, that's not a point under debate.