[quote=SK in CV]I can. From roughly 1987 through 1990, beginning with the TRA of ’86, and ending when top rates were increased in ’90. I don’t remember if that law took effect in ’90 or ’91. Top rate during that period was 28%. I don’t think that was the only period, but it was the first time in a very long time that all capital gains were treated the same as other income.
Additionally, I would caution your use of correlation as causation.[/quote]
Thanks for pointing me to that time period. It was ’88 and ’89 where the two rates were the same. Wasn’t that right after Reagan’s 1986’s tax reform? He took rate from 50% down to 28%. Then Bush raised it and Clinton followed. So, that’s a very brief moment. Since at least 1954 to now, those were the only two years where we saw the two rates being the same.
You cautioning me with my use of correlation vs causation? I’m NOT making any claim at all. I was just showing data and pointing out my observation of the data. You’re the one who make insinuations like top rate was 90% in the early 60s and we saw good economic growth. Then a sentence later, saying we should have higher tax rate because it’ll spur corporate spending. I didn’t make the claims that raising lower tax brackets would spur economic growth. I was just saying if we follow your insinuation about high top tax rate = economic growth, we should also look at what were the rest of the tax brackets were back then as well. You can’t pick and choose which variable you want to manipulate and expect us to believe we’ll see the same result.
