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: PROLIFE who wrote (356066)	2/7/2003 10:47:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Too bad the Cato Institute analysis indicates exactly the opposite... that big-spending Bush has proposed $10 of new spending for every $1 in tax cuts. He's spending like a drunken sailor... even worse than the last 'Texas President', LBJ. And the div. proposal will do little or nothing to increase economic growth, it will mostly screw up and overly complicate the tax code even more. (Of course, it won't pass anyway, not with all that Republican opposition to it.) Firstly, it provides NO INCENTIVE to corporations to issue dividends - since they get no tax break, unlike the incentive they have to go into debt because the interest on loans is deductible to them. The proper approach would have been to continue taxing div. payouts at the individual level... but make earnings paid out as dividends by corporations a tax deduction for the corporations, as debt is. THAT would have provided a REAL surge in dividends... by leveling the playing field with debt. Secondly, only companies that 'pay enough taxes' could issue tax-free dividends... and only for that tax year. (So that mean Microsoft's new dividend payments would remain taxable....) Currently 16 of the DOW 30 stocks don't pay enough taxes, so their dividends would still be taxable (and ALL foreign stock dividends would still be taxable). Thirdly, REIT payouts (classified as interest payments) would still be taxable, 90+ of all preferred stock payments would still be taxable (info from the WSJ), and muni bonds would be adversely impacted... putting a whammy on State and localities finances. Fourthly, since most stocks are held in 401k or pension plans and are already tax sheltered, more than half the entire world of domestic equities outstanding would have no preference attached to their payouts - unlike if Bush had made the economically CORRECT propoal and extended the tax deduction to corporations. All his 'class warfare' div proposal will do is extend huge tax shelters to the very few, very rich people, who benefit from massive ownership of dividend-paying stocks held in non-retirement accounts... that, and bust the federal budget without providing any help to our corporations, so there will be little or no job growth from them attributable to this giveaway. This Rube couldn't pass Econ 101! What we need is a MASSIVE restructuring of the entire corrupt tax code, elimination of all the 'crony capitalism' and 'national industrial policy' tax loopholes and special preference items which distort the economy and restrict growth... and then a lowering of all tax rates </> by at least the same amount we save by striking out all the loopholes. But this gutless wonder doesn't have the balls for real reform... only for paying off the special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (356066)	2/8/2003 9:14:58 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Pro, The article you posted fails to mention one important fact. For many years, especially since 1986, Social Security has run a huge surplus. Social Security revenues have far exceeded Social Security payments. The government has borrowed over $700 billion from the Social Security account. In 10 years, when payments start to exceed revenues, that money must be paid back. It is just and proper that money be paid back because the government never should have raided the fund in the first place. By the way, those funds were used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.