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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (48832)	6/7/2006 7:42:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

The long run doesn't have to be our great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I could easily be alive 40 years from now. That's fairly long run. And even beyond my life time it would be nice to leave the generations to come with a bigger and better economy. (2) Show me that reducing the top tax rate from 4% to 3 1/2% will results in in 0.4% faster growth rate. What does that have to do with anything? I gave a hypothetical about how reducing the tax rate from 40% to 30% might give a .4% faster growth rate, now you want evidence that a cut from 4% to 3.5% would increase the growth rate by that much? I suppose if I could give you that proof (even though it probably not be possible to prove even in the unlikely case that it was true), you would then ask me to show that a tax cut from 0.1% to 0.08% would provide such an increase in growth. Its a silly and almost entirely irrelevant question. And don't neglect the fact that economic growth is NEVER and never has been a smooth upward curve That isn't neglected at all. The average growth could be .4% better, or show some other small but over time significant level of improvement without every year having positive growth, and even with some years having worse growth than in the no tax cut scenario. And losing just one of those wars can throw all your assumptions into cocked hat. If the war caused the country to be conquered or destroyed all assumptions about the future of the country go in to the round file. If the country has a loss similar to Vietnam, it doesn't invalidate the point, unless you are asserting that the tax cut will cause the loss. If your going to lose a war because of a tax cut I'm not likely to support the tax cut. I'm not saying that in every possible situations tax cuts are always a good idea (take that idea to its logical ends and your asserting we should have no taxes), you seem to be joining Wheelan in attacking that straw man.