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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (124889)	2/1/2001 11:25:30 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You seem to duck the tough question. Should government play Robin Hood? Your statement below, would suggest that the "concentration of wealth" has to be undone for the good of the economy: a million people invested a thousand dollars, not because a thousand people invested a million dollars. The concentration of wealth does more for the price of racehorses and Porshes than for the market. Your words suggest that Reaganomics is a bad idea because the wealth does not trickle down, but rather stays "concentrated". LoF

To: TigerPaw who wrote (124889)	2/1/2001 11:38:40 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Tidbit from Business Week that seems to discount Clinton's economic brilliance or any claim to the 90s boom: "...What really allowed Greenspan to cut rates in the 1990s was higher productivity growth. And that new productivity reflected long-gestating trends in technology- not in short-term fiscal policy..." Page 26, February 5. businessweek.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (124889)	2/1/2001 11:43:46 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Clinton's economic legacy to Bush: from Business Week, Feb 5. Is the Budget Surplus at Risk? A market slump's uncertain impact Tax-cut advocates may be counting on a lot of revenue chickens that may never hatch. On the one hand, they point to the hefty $237 billion surplus racked up by Uncle Sam in the past fiscal year and to projections of a near-$5 trillion cumulative surplus over the next decade as proof that a large tax cut is well within the government's means. On the other, they claim the economy has entered a sharp slowdown that requires tax-cut therapy. One problem, of course, is that any slowdown would carve a sizable chunk out of projected revenues. More important, there's a fair chance that tax collections could take a large hit in coming years even if a recession is avoided. ''Many people don't appreciate how much capital gains generated by the stock market boom have bolstered government revenues in recent years,'' says Mark M. Zandi of Economy.com Inc., ''and how much those revenues could wane if the market moves sideways or posts only modest increases.'' In a speech last year, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers noted that tax collections have risen as a share of gross domestic product even though the federal tax burden for most American families is the lowest since the 1970s. The explanation: a rise in realized capital gains (mainly from stocks), which provide tax revenues but aren't counted as contributing to GDP. Government data tell the story. In 1994, capital-gains realizations totaled $152.7 billion, slightly higher than in 1993. By 1996, however, they had surged to a record $260.7 billion, and in 1999, by Zandi's estimate, they hit $566 billion, or nearly 6% of GDP. Meanwhile, tax liabilities on such gains soared from $36.2 billion in 1995 to an estimated $113 billion in 1999. All told, Zandi figures that this trend accounted for a fifth of the swing from a federal deficit of $204 billion in 1994 to a $237 billion surplus in fiscal 2000. A key question is what happened last year. Economist Joseph A. LaVorgna of Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. thinks capital-gains realizations mainly reflect recent market shifts, so he figures they declined substantially, lowering tax liabilities--and this year's tax take--by as much as $43 billion. Zandi, however, believes realized gains may have risen in spite of the market drop because many people took gains on stocks they had held for years. If so, the budgetary impact this year will be positive as tax bills come due in April, but it could turn sharply negative next year. In any case, the outlook for big capital gains in the years ahead is dicey, to say the least. Few experts see another market boom anytime soon. And that implies reduced revenues, not only from people selling stocks but from corporations used to posting big gains on their own stock investment portfolios and on their pension fund assets--as well as from executives whose hefty past gains from exercising stock options were subject to the highest income tax rates. ''The impact of a relatively flat equity market on the fiscal health of all levels of government is a story waiting to be told,'' concludes Zandi.