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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (157689)	6/5/2003 11:47:06 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Well, if the "tax cuts for the rich" label doesn't stick, then change the subject. That's fine. So, now the issue is the size of future deficits (never mind that these projections have rarely been reliable in the past). OK, let's figure out how to reform entitlement programs, cut pork and generally make government more efficient to reduce spending. Got any ideas? Or how 'bout ways to increase revenues without sapping incentives or simply imposing punitive taxes on the rich so that you can redistribute wealth out of some socialist idea of "fairness". BTW, on the dividend issue, perhaps it would have been better to simply make dividends deductible for corporations like interest. That way people like Warren Buffett can't claim they got a 90% tax cut.;-) Seriously, the way they've done it, average tax rate comparisons between income groups become meaningless and potentially misleading. The issue will come up again and again with the "fairness" demagogues conveniently forgetting that the payment of a dividend implies taxes on the corporate level (i.e. they are after-tax dollars). On the surface, it looks like Buffett got a windfall, but the reality is that a punitive double tax was eliminated in part to remove perverted incentives for corporations to favor debt over equity financing and in part to stimulate investment in equities. Making them deductible on the corporate level would have achieved that without making it appear to be a giveaway to the rich.

To: Alomex who wrote (157689)	6/5/2003 9:01:46 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 164684

The first sleight of hand is that $350 billion number. Mr Bush had hoped for twice as much, but Congress has squeezed his tax cuts into a smaller package by setting time limits. alomex, just like i told rd... this tax plan WASN'T as big a give-away to the elite rich AS DESPERATELY WANTED BY BUSH. CLEARLY, the tax cut that passed wasn't the original tax cut bush wanted - IT WAS ONLY ABOUT HALF! for some reason, he took issue with the TRUTH and tried to spin it. i guess he didn't have any real issues so he made one up.

To: Alomex who wrote (157689)	6/5/2003 9:08:04 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan also cut taxes (from far more draconian levels) and failed to cut spending: the result was an entrepreneurial boom, but also huge deficits, which were reduced only when Mr Bush's own father raised taxes bush sr raised taxes to cut the deficit? hmmmmmm... i thought the pubs where telling us the lower the tax rate, and the higher the burden is on the poor, the more tax revenue we will have... where is the proof? oh, this isn't about proof, it is about owning 70% of america and paying less than 10% of the taxes in america.