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 : Drillbits & Bottlerockets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (6798)	3/30/2001 5:56:23 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15481

>>Should we wait until there is some form of equilibrium and the government has a clear view as to whot kind of money is coming into them? << Hell no! And when did you become a Librarian? And where the heck is is OMD when you need him?? He could set you straight.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (6798)	3/30/2001 6:18:20 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15481

<<How much of our tax surplus is a function of the recently demised bull market?>> No doubt that it's a part but NO WAY is it the driving force behind the surplus. Over taxation is the key. The cap gain issue of 2000 was a nice windfall though.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (6798)	3/30/2001 6:32:46 PM
From: Junkyardawg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15481

Well, if you cut taxes it will spur growth and more people will work. If more people work and companies are growing they will work longer and pay more taxes. If you don't cut taxes less people will work and you will get much less taxes than if you don't cut taxes in the first place. Not to mention if you don't cut taxes more people will be unemployed and thus government programs will have to spend more. Seems logical to me that have a smaller tax %. In the end the smaller tax% you have, the government will actually take in more taxes. Did that make any sense? I know it did to me dawg