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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7203)	11/5/2000 10:20:30 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, good well thought out post. A few expections: What is unhealthy is when a tax cut which "applies equally to all", actually reduces the tax rate of those in the $1 MM plus category (percentage wise) more than it does those in the $100,000 bracket. It is my understanding that Bush's tax cut will cut in half the taxes of families earning less than $75,000/yr. (I wish I could remember where I saw this, maybe someone can provide a link.) Consequently, the tax cut is not as "unequal" as Gore makes it sound. It is just that the "rich" pay such a higher percent of the total taxes now that under Bush they will get a higher percentage of the "refunded" taxes. In the end the promises made in the political campaign rarely end up being put into place. The real world fiscal constraints and partisan bickering usually "restrain" the final legislation that is passed. I suspect we have far more to fear from the Asian problems you've discussed than from Bush's or Gore's tax plan. Jay

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7203)	11/5/2000 2:32:49 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 30051

Hi Zeev Hed; There was a time when the highest marginal tax rates in the US were > 90%, (though I don't think this applied to capital gains, which were always at a reduced rate). JFK reduced the top marginal rates, and then Reagan did it again, if I remember correctly. Here's a chart of marginal tax rates: heritage.org This is from the following website (ain't google wonderful): heritage.org -- Carl

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7203)	11/6/2000 1:03:00 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, What is unhealthy is when a tax cut which "applies equally to all", actually reduces the tax rate of those in the $1 MM plus category (percentage wise) more than it does those in the $100,000 bracket. I don't have the figures at hand, but the top few percentage of taxpayers in this country pay a grossly inordinate amount of the personal taxes (something like the top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax). Why shouldn't they get the biggest benefit? Otherwise it's just income redistibution. Or, as I think someone once said, "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs". Are you for a flat tax, then, with a high cut-off level and no deductions whatsoever? Personally, I believe I could get behind something like that, though I've not heard all the arguments pro and con. Dave p.s. Even though I managed to get a concentration in Economics in Business School (completely by accident), the only thing I can really state unequivocably about the subject is that it's like a giant "whack-a-mole" game (the one where you hit the moles on the head when the pop out of their holes). You whack interest rates down, and inflation pops up. You whack inflation down and something else pops up. It's a never-ending game, and anyone who thinks they have the answer that solves everything is a shyster or an idiot. <G> Hence, a lot of the reason I like to keep a balanced government <VBG>. No one gets too cocky or has the green light to get weird on us.