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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (257343)	2/23/2008 2:45:21 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

Yes ...it has become a nonsense mantra of those who want something for nothing. the simplest way to spell it out is that reducing taxes to increase revenues works best when the economy has bottomed out....then one can ride the wave of increasing growth. we are no where near to bottomed out.......for that to happen the bad debt overhanging the market needs to be written down or off.jmho

To: bentway who wrote (257343)	2/23/2008 10:06:48 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

I dont know what M is in your post but the JFK thing was different. It shouldnt be used as cons as an example of what JFK was thinking at all. Rates were 90% back then but no one paid that. There were tax shelters up the arse. I was a broker then and used to sell that shit--cattle, oil, real estate. I watched commodity brokers on the floor set up bogus trades and deliberately put their high earners on the losing side for the tax write offs and thats after JFK. Any lowering of rates then could only increase revenue because shelters started losing their allure. Reagan realized this to so when tax rates were lowered into the high 20s with bradley/reagan in 86 and then adjusted up to low 30s, most of the loopholes had been removed. And again that cut was revenue neutral. The failure under bush is that he ignored the spending side, and entered a costly war in iraq without paying for it. Pre iraq, i was for ignoring the spending side because post 9/11 it was essential to juice the economy. But once iraq started, this was all unsustainable. What the democrats mustnt do is throw the low tax baby out with the bathwater. Given where we are now, we need tax reform with everything on the table. But it would be a huge mistake to raise rates on income and cap gains, eliminate the dividend exclusion, and reverse the progress thru indexing the estate tax. Obama made the mistake yesterday of saying middle class families earn 75k. I hope he was talking about a single person. Folks who make 150k in a young family are in the middle class too. Hillary raised it to 250k when she said reverse tax cuts for rich who make over 250k in stark contrast to obamas 75k which again i hope was a misspeak.