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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (317421)	12/26/2006 12:30:36 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1576853

re: Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra. CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives! Just because two independent thing happen, it doesn't prove cause/effect. Unless you really WANT to believe in the tooth fairy.

To: longnshort who wrote (317421)	12/26/2006 3:06:00 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576853

"These are the numbers. They don’t lie. " No. But the one presenting the numbers does. All that the numbers mean is that the CBO can't predict the stock market very accurately. To say that traders are putting money in the market because the tax rate is lower is either being deliberately misleading or being incredibly stupid. It can happen, if the tax rate is really high, but it hasn't been really high in a long time. So I vote for the author being deliberately misleading. You, on the other hand...