Hewlett-Packard Company Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • trailerparksharpie trailerparksharpie • Nov 19, 2012 3:34 PM Flag

    Why those taxed to dirth job creators created so many jobs then

    Nothing? Just explain why it's not in the 271K ballpark.

    No? The difference between marginal rate and top rate, then? Is this author even using marginal rate correctly?

    Sort:  Newest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • vt_investor vt_investor • Nov 20, 2012 12:29 AM Flag

      It's not in the 271K ballpark because the truly wealthy would have paid taxes at about the 25% rate, which was the cap. gains tax rate in the 1950's. Just as Romney paid his taxes at just under the current 15% cap. gains rate last year, the truly wealthy in the 1950's would have paid at close to the cap. gains rate at that time, as well.

      Sentiment: Hold

      • 1 Reply to vt_investor
      • exhpa exhpa • Nov 20, 2012 6:32 AM Flag

        Remember the 1950s:

        Krugman says the effective tax rate on the wealthiest was 70 percent, not 91 percent.

        As is usual, a Republican in the White House meant recessions. Businesses welcome the excuse to trim payrolls. Unemployment reached levels of 6.2% and even 6.9%.

        And investors were in the market for the long-haul. Long term capital gains were used for reinvestment, not to live off a la Romney.

 
HPQ
24.012.78(+13.09%)10:30 AMEDT