3 ms·

I disagree with all of your statements. Again - the 90% tax bracket in the 1960's applied to income - not capital gains. Ergo - a reduction in that income tax

I disagree with all of your statements. Again - the 90% tax bracket in the 1960's applied to income - not capital gains. Ergo - a reduction in that income tax bracket would do nothing to incentive M&A activity wherein surpluses would be taxed as capital gains (i.e. at a lower rate than income). In fact - the reduction in income tax breaks would have the opposite effect you describe - it would encourage companies to pay more regular income, as opposed to M&A type transactions which will be taxed via capital gains. Second - M&A activity does not inherently have anything to do with 'short term' or 'long term'. M&A is just as much a strategic activity as anything else. You are a ware that 'HN' is part of YCombinator, at the very heart of this kind of activity, right? Do you think that YC - which creates companies that will likely fail, or be bought - are an example of 'short term' and 'myopic' thinking? Seriously? No way. The very site you're writing your words upon is probably the best example of how important M&A and financial transactions are to the health of an economic ecosystem.

Roboprog 10y ago
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ Some samples (cap gains rates, via whatever method is used on the site above): 2015: 25% 2010: 15% 2005: 16.1% 2000: 21.2% 1995: 29.2% 1990: 28% 1985: 20% 1980: 28% 1975: 36.5% 1970: 32.3% 1965: 25% 1960: 25% 1955: 25% 1950: 25% 1945: 25% 1940: 30% 1935: 31.5% 1930: 12.5% 1925: 12.5% 1920: 73% 1915: 15% Cap gains rates policies have fluctuated a bit throughout the decades as well. One could argue (unless it's in one's interest NOT to) that there is at least some correlation between rates lower than 25% and hyperactivity leading to crashes. E.g. 1925/1930; 1985; 2000-2010. Or one could argue that correlation is not causation (in which case, why not "fund the commons", since tax rate doesn't affect business cycle outcomes, anyway).
- edblarney 10y ago
  None of those variations save the 73% are going to cause major changes in behaviour. Also - they need to be taken into context with the other tax rates: dividends + income. And arguably corporate rates as well.

Roboprog 10y ago

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/ Some samples (cap gains rates, via whatever method is used on the site above): 2015: 25% 2010: 15% 2005: 16.1% 2000: 21.2% 1995: 29.2% 1990: 28% 1985: 20% 1980: 28% 1975: 36.5% 1970: 32.3% 1965: 25% 1960: 25% 1955: 25% 1950: 25% 1945: 25% 1940: 30% 1935: 31.5% 1930: 12.5% 1925: 12.5% 1920: 73% 1915: 15% Cap gains rates policies have fluctuated a bit throughout the decades as well. One could argue (unless it's in one's interest NOT to) that there is at least some correlation between rates lower than 25% and hyperactivity leading to crashes. E.g. 1925/1930; 1985; 2000-2010. Or one could argue that correlation is not causation (in which case, why not "fund the commons", since tax rate doesn't affect business cycle outcomes, anyway).

edblarney 10y ago
None of those variations save the 73% are going to cause major changes in behaviour. Also - they need to be taken into context with the other tax rates: dividends + income. And arguably corporate rates as well.