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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Webster Groves who wrote (46489)	2/16/2009 10:55:08 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 218621

Hi Webster - that's more than a little correlation --> causation. The 1960s has scads of loopholes for both personal and corporate taxes. Some people could argue that tax rates were reduced because growth had slowed, and it was thought that lower rates would help growth. Also, many of the high tax rates of the 1930s were set at income levels that were sky high for that era. $100,000 income in 1936 would be equivalent to 2 million or more today. That was movie star income level. 35 % on $150,000 today will hit a bunch of doctors who are still paying off their student loans. *********** There have been many detailed economic studies to try to determine optimum corporate tax rates vs. growth employment, etc. Japan was always an outlier, with higher tax rates but good growth. A detailed analysis showed that the effective tax rates, after all deductions and loopholes, were actually much more in line with the rest of the world.