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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearshark who wrote (15316)	10/7/2002 3:04:21 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I think this election is a toss-up and would not be surprised if something similar to 1994 occurred but in the opposite direction. I have no feel at all as to how this election is going to go. Do you remember the top income tax rate before Mr. Reagan's tax cuts? If not, take a guess. If you do, do you feel the tax rate should have remained as it was prior to the tax cuts? Around 75%...and I wouldn't hazard a guess as to where that marginal rate kicked in or how it might have been indexed and relates to current year dollars....What was the effective tax rate for people in that tax bracket? The easy answer is 75% is too high...no one is going to beat me up over that answer. The context of tax rate adjustments is usually a revenue neutral model. Along with that 75% is too high, then someone else's effective tax rate is too low. Who was it that we wanted to pay more taxes? 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending. I look at things differently then I did in the 80's [I would hope that I've learned something in 20 years]. There are different ways you can define "fair". One tax model would be to consider government spending to be a services industry and divide government spending by the number of people in the country to compute your tax bill. No relation at all to income. You get a service, you pay for the service. Such a model says that a family of four, regardless of income, pays the same tax bill as any family of four. Seems fair. A family of four pays twice as much as a family of two. I'll never get anyone to agree that's fair, but I think it is. But it isn't even practical, so toss that one out. Another model of "fair" considers income, taxes and wealth. What I'd like to have is the ol' "rising tide lifts all boats" model. Like it or not, the tax system has and will be used as a tool to manage the economy. With consumer spending 2/3 of the economy, I think that consumer spending the biggest driver for a healthy economy. It swamps investment, interest rates, etc. as a component for a healthy economy. In spite of the declining market, there's still a lot of money out there, interest rates are incredibly low and investment is virtually ground to a halt. Consequently, I'd like the tax burden to be shifted to allow for consumer spending and make sure that investment and hard work is a motivator. In the most current budget, the national [or nominal] tax rate is ~9.5%. I think that's a reasonable number, not small but not burdensome. I'm sure some will disagree. I'll pause there for now. This is a good stop point to see where we agree/disagree. jttmab

To: bearshark who wrote (15316)	10/7/2002 3:29:18 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

This is remotely related to working hard and being rewarded, though not in the context of taxes... -------------------------- Robert Wilson calls his Emmy "super." He is, after all, an engineer. And a minister. But above all, he is one of the fathers of flat-screen plasma television. The radar specialist, who works at the defense firm Analex Corp. in Alexandria, won a National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences prize last week for his contributions to the chemistry behind the TV technology. "It's really kind of cute," he said of his statue, now standing tall on a living room table. "It's got our names on it. We had this big fancy black-tie dinner. I got to bed at 12 and was still super excited two hours later." It was more than 30 years ago that Wilson and two colleagues toiled in a University of Illinois laboratory and discovered that the right alchemy of gas and pixels produced gorgeous color -- color that, after decades of tinkering, produced gorgeous television. In plasma displays, as the technology is called, gas excites color pixels, and the pixels, in combination, create millions of colors. Television makers have used the concept to manufacture commercial television monitors less than four inches thick. Wilson, 66, does not own one. "I am hoping the prices will drop," he said. The Analex engineer works part time at the defense company. He retired from Northrop Grumman Corp. six years ago and lives in Ellicott City, where he tends to a small home ministry. Wilson had not planned to attend the annual Emmy awards dinner because the trip to New York was too expensive. His boss, Analex President Sterling Phillips, helped cover the cost of the trip. ....... washingtonpost.com --------------------------------- Worked hard, invented the flat-screen plasma display 30 years ago with two other guys [neat invention] and he can't afford a trip to New York. jttmab