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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (153063)	10/10/2002 9:56:31 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584984

The main one was his tax-cuts. Bush's cuts reduced revenue for the government, and transferred most of that money to a small number of taxpayers who were already quite wealthy. So the "tax-cuts" were diverted largely into bad investments, Italian marble bathroom floors, and German built cars. You haven't a clue about tax/fiscal policy. 1) The only significant tax cut that has gone into effect is the 300/600 refund that went to EACH AND EVERY PERSON WHO FILED A TAX RETURN, regardless of income. The consequence of this is not different from an equivalent cut in payroll taxes. 2) A cut in payroll taxes is totally infeasible as a short-term measure due to the time lag required to implement it (at a minimum, more than one year). You can't just announce one day "we're cutting payroll taxes effective immediately". Further the legislation to make such a cut would be monumental and would likely require years to get through Congress in the first place. 3) If you cut the payroll tax in half, as you suggested, you obviously don't have the slightest idea the size of the deficit you would create if current benefit payouts were to be sustained. YOUR POSITION IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF. You're saying that he should have either made NO TAX CUTS or HUGE TAX CUTS. BUT NOT THE TAX CUTS HE MADE. This position serves to point out one thing about your thinking: That tax policy doesn't matter, so long as it is a LIBERAL's and NOT BUSH's. The notion that the Bush tax cuts went to the "1% of wealthiest Americans" is an out and out liberal lie that does not comport with what actually has transpired. The top rate bracket was reduced by ONE PERCENTAGE POINT. This is for people already paying $88,000 in federal taxes. I think it is clear from your post you are clueless on this subject, all over-the-place with your ideas, and reflecting of a total lack of understanding of the Internal Revneue Code, tax policy, and how it is created. Typical liberal, criticize without understanding.

To: Dan3 who wrote (153063)	10/10/2002 3:09:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584984

The main one was his tax-cuts. Bush's cuts reduced revenue for the government, and transferred most of that money to a small number of taxpayers who were already quite wealthy. 1 - The economic slowdown started before Bush came in to office and way before any tax cuts have taken effect. 2 - Most of the tax cuts esp. most of the tax cuts on the very wealthy are backloaded and have not taken effect yet. In fact a lot of the cuts do not go in to effect for years. So far most of the benefit has not gone to the very rich. It will be true eventually when all the tax cuts are phased in that most of the benefits will go to the rich but since they pay most of the taxes and since they get hit hardest by any increases it makes sense that they should benefit the most by any cuts. 3 - In gneeral when taxes are reduced on the wealthy they are more likely to invest the money in ways that create jobs then the less wealthy but if they do spend it that spending creates demand as much as the spending of the less then wealthy does. Tim