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: greenspirit who wrote (339992)	1/8/2003 1:58:29 AM
From: MSI	Respond to of 769670

I'll have to get the stats, but dividends benefits are something like $50 benefit for under $50k/year, and ramping up to the multi-million/year. The real question is whether it is a better policy at this juncture to leave the over-$150k/year as-is, and spread the economic pump-priming below that, or not. I.e., are more jobs are created by giving the higher earners tax relief than the alternative? Bush claims it will, the opposition claims otherwise. Lowering corp taxes would have better rationale, since that preserves more profit for corp uses, but dividend taxation only matters when paying out to individuals, and most of the dividends go to wealthy, I'll venture a guess over half go to over-$1 million assets. I'll check that. We're stretched thin already, the gov't is overspending and locked into a ridiculously aggressive military posture for years to come, and we're in what will prove to be the worst downturn since 1929, so there's not much room for error. The notion of eliminating dividend taxation might be a good one, but done as a sudden shock to the economic system at this point is risky as hell, to the point of being irresponsible. It has been debated since 1913 and never changed, so there are clearly issues of importance that deserve better review than the GOP cavalier "take it or leave it, because we rule" attitude.