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: DavesM who wrote (126060)	2/7/2001 9:48:20 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Where will your faith based charity tax money go? How about to Scientology. msnbc.com TP

To: DavesM who wrote (126060)	2/8/2001 1:42:51 PM
From: mst2000	Respond to of 769667

I never said a tax cut is a bad thing at this point, I was only taking issue with Tom's numbers which (like so many numbers being thrown around from those who support the Bush tax plan) are so far off from reality that they deserve to be corrected. What mystifies me about the Bush tax plan is that no matter what theunderlying facts, it is absoutely necessary - when the economy was perceived to be "rocking", it was needed to "give back" a share the surplus to those who created it (albeit the surplus itself is somewhat shaky, in that it is based on long term projections that are in turn based on growth, interest rate and other economic assumptions that are subject to change, and are suspect to begin with, for reasons too lengthy to get into in this post) and the GOP totally played down the inflationary aspects of adding additional stimulation to an already robust economy and shrinking the extent of long term federal debt reduction; and now that the economy is perceived to be (or at least characterized as) "rocky", it is needed to stimulate the economy, and the GOP is downplaying the fiscal impact it might have by turning surpluses into deficits, increasing interest rates and otherwise being fiscally irresponsible. I think Greenspan has come out in favor of tax cuts (heck, even the Democrats are in favor of tax cuts, fer crying out loud) but he has not endorsed the totality of the Bush tax plan or its weighting to the top 1%. My problem with it is that it is too much -- and too heavily weighted to the higher income tax brackets (which I happen to be in myself). I think a better (and equally stimulative approach) would be to reduce payroll taxes across the board, or just as good, expand the tax brackets themselves so that the percentage increases don't kick in until higher levels, and to reduce the top bracket by a little less - say from 39.6% to 36% as opposed to from 39.6% to 33%, which is just a windfall for the least needy. That would still be "across the board", it would be equitable to all income earners, and would be far more stimulative because it would put even more money in the hands of people making under $100,000 per year (who are the ones holding back on spending right now - with a high six-figure income, I can assure you that I spend every bit as much today as I did a year ago or two years ago). A large tax giveaway might well have the result of putting us back into deficit spending (as happened the last time Reaganomics was experimented with) especially if some of the rosier economic assumptions that are being used to project 10 year surpluses don't pan out, which will in turn raise interest rates and shrink growth. And before you respond that the GOP congress can be trusted to hold down federal spending, bear in mind (i) that 95% of the federal budget is either non-discretionary or military and law enforcement related (and is growing due to longer life spans and other actuarial factors), (ii) the rest of the Federal budget is so lean now that there is almost nothing to cut that will have any effect on the deficit, and (iii) the decision to defer military spending increases promised in this past fall's campiagn for at least a year (I call that "Read My Lips II", by the way, because it shows that Cheney was full of it on the campaign trail) all but proves that the administration knows that there is no fat left to cut. MST