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: SilentZ who wrote (461195)	3/4/2009 8:19:34 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1574177

The top rate was 90% till Kennedy's tax cut. Then it was 70 or 75% till Reagan's tax cuts. Did the economy do okay under those rates? Well, it didn't do well before WWII, thats for sure. When it did do okay with high marginal rates was in the couple decades after WWII. Lets remember that WWII wiped out our industrial competitors. That was a special time when we had virtually no foreign competition. As that changed we began to experience more and more economic problems and we didn't regain our economic dynamism till Reagan.

To: SilentZ who wrote (461195)	3/4/2009 9:12:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574177

Z, the following two statements don't jibe: > The country has thrived the most with the high marginal tax rates at higher tax brackets. Not a coincidence. > Maybe 75% is ridiculous; who knows? There are points where taxes are too high, and there are points where they're too low. 75% isn't an arbitrary figure. It's been done before in post-WWII history. Since you think the country has thrived the most with high marginal tax rates, then you should be a strong advocate for the 75% rate. You would also regard the Clinton era as a period of economic stagnation relative to the times when we had higher marginal tax rates. After all, Clinton limited the rate to 39.6%. OMG, what a right-wing nutjob! Tenchusatsu