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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nasdaqian who wrote (14066)	5/10/2001 11:32:52 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>>I think you just proved that joe should hope for a tax increase, whereby his purchasing power will go up!<< nas, under some circumstances, you are correct. if everything over $100k was taxed 100% then those not affected by the cut (under $100k) would see their purchasing power go up. waaaaaaaaaaaay up. as i said, the game isn't tax cuts, per se. it is getting MORE for oneself and less for everyone else. or, as you pointed out, less for everyone else relative to oneself. >>Seems to me taxes going into the gov. don't just fall into a hole. It is spent also, just somewhere else. Nullifying your supposed inflationary affect caused by a tax cut.<< naz, that is a good point. however, what the govt buys and what joe 6 pack buys are different. there is some overlap, but there are also a lot of differences. there would reasonably be some offsetting effect, but, imho, it would be nowhere near 100% b/c the basket of goods is quite different. btw, isn't welfare also a subsidy for business? after all, the money is spent some and generates profits somewhere, right? the trickle down theory folks espouse the virtues of money flowing down. well, the trickle up theory makes just as much sense. however, the trickle up theory folks don't have the power to get people elected nor the millions to lobby for their interests. can i assume we agree that many people other than welfare recipients are the beneficiaries of govt subsidies? i noticed you didn't debate this point even though it was most of the note.