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: TimF who wrote (48835)	6/7/2006 8:57:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Wheelan does have real point. At a low marginal tax rate, a small decrease in that rate may have little or no effect on investment decisions, particularly as compared to other possible influences outside a gov't's control. Know how long it took the Dow to attain regain the peak it reached in 1929? 25 years. And tht is by no means a record. How's that for long term in attaining a ZERO growth rate? (Actually, less than zero, because inflation ate away at the value of the dollar through those 25 years.) Do you suppose there are no countries that are worse off today than they have been in the past? Do you think that this always happened because of excessive government taxation? 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? You PROVED no such thing. You ASSUMED it. 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. Irrelevant? It's the core of the argument. 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. Suppose you achieve your tax cut by not expanding your military at a time when you need to? Easy enough to do. I'd say that's precisely what Clinton did- -and let al Qaeda grow.