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: Srexley who wrote (443665)	8/15/2003 5:51:25 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

OK Srexley, we've narrowed the scope of our disagreement down to manageable terms and you have a reasonable position. We're left with two questions. First, is the tax cut designed to stimulate the economy so that we all get a "real" tax benefit. Second, was the old proportionate rate of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans more or less fair than the lower rate they now pay. There have been a lot of economists weighing in on the first issue. Most of them, including some that were once Bush economists and have now left, are of the opinion that it will help stimulate the economy a little, but that there was a much bigger bang to be gotten for the buck if the bulk of the "cut" had gone to the middle income wage earner. The argument is that the problem we are having in the economy now is not a problem that can be fixed with new investment. The rate of capacity utilization of our manufacturing sector is, I believe, in the mid 70%. That leaves a lot of idle capacity. There is plenty of investment money sitting on the sidelines but the wealthy are not investing it because of a lack of DEMAND. Putting money in the hands of those that will spend it (purchasers of goods and services) creates demand that requires production and utilizes the idle capacity. That results in jobs and, ultimately, investment in more capacity. Giving more money to sit idly by waiting for the 25% of idle capacity to evaporate doesn't help much. That's why there was so much criticism of the "purported" basis for the structure of the tax "cut" and so many calls for the cut to be restructured to place more of the benefit in the hands of the middle American wage earner. The question of whether it is more or less fair to lower the tax rate of our wealthiest Americans is one that can be debated forever. The truth is that over the years they have been subject to a rate SCHEDULE that appears onerous. The reality, however, is that they have utilized loopholes so that real rate is not nearly as high. When we say things like the top 1% pay X% in taxes, we should also ask what percentage of INCOME the top 1% make. When we compare that to the % of total income of families making say 100k a year, and the % of total taxes they pay, I think you might be surprised, but I don't have any figures for you. Finally, the "cnyndwllr" is for "canyon dweller." I'm a mid 50s veteran and am retired from a professional career. And yes, I have paid those onerous rates at the top of the bracket and never complained one bit. I don't mind paying my share, I just draw the line at paying the share of those that make thousands of times more income than I do.