Re: shuttle disaster
Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:59:12AM -0600, DvB wrote:
>
> If you want to have a debate, try to not put words into my mouth.
> Obviously I never said any such thing. I know I never thought it
> either, and I'm quite certain you don't know what I think.
>
Sorry, didn't mean to do any of those things.
> What I was originally objecting to was your seeming assertion that
> people with a lot of money (i.e. more money than you have) don't need
> or deserve it and thus the government should take it back.
>
And I never said or thought any of those things. Shall we call it even?
> > > I find it deliciously ironic that so many people use the Internet to
> > > complain about the "evils" of capitalism and the United States of
> > > America.
> >
> > I think I have a right to complain about my own country and how my tax
> > dollars are used. Or, in this case, what millionaires get tax cuts
> > instead of me (even if my stock investments were in taxable accounts
> > rather than tax deferred, the tax savings from untaxed dividend income
> > would be negligible).
>
> Again, I never said you didn't have the right to complain. Do you
> always place words in the mouths of others?
>
You sounded skeptical about my motives in complaining (I got the,
possibly erroneous, impression that you thought I wasn't American) and I
simply defended my actions.
> Anytime I hear people talking about "millionaires getting tax cuts" my
> bogometer goes off. I find that many people who make such statements
> lack knowledge of economics. This may or may not apply to you.
>
Take it up with my economics prof.
> In any case, you missed the irony altogether. That's ok.
>
Until we get to know each other, let me know what prosaical devices
you're using :-)
> > A better way to "lower taxes for all Americans" would be to increase the
> > amount of income that's taxed at the lowest level (currently the first
> > $10,000 are taxed at 10%, IIRC).
>
> I think the point of the dividend tax cut is to spur investment. I
> think we can safely deduce that most people receiving dividends are
> investors. The idea is that investors will spend or invest even more
> money which in turn will spur the economy. There seems to be ample
> evidence that investment spurs econimic growth (though haphazard `,
> reckless investment often yields "phantom" growth).
>
IMHO, if people are already investing in stocks despite taxes on
dividends, getting rid of the tax probably won't make that much
difference. To back up my statement, all the (informal and unscientific)
polls I've seen on financial websites have had the majority of the
respondents say that a dividend tax cut wouldn't have any effect on
their investment strategy. The only effect it would have for me is
to make me move my investments into (formerly) taxable instead of tax
exempt accounts for greater liquidity (which might jeopardize my
retirement and make me more dependent of social security if I don't
happen to be a disciplined person).
A tax cut that really does go to "all* Americans, OTOH, might provide an
incestive to people who aren't current investors to invest.
Had I any extra money, I would open an income producing taxable account
right now in addition to my tax exempt investments. Unfortunately,
Under Bush's plan, doing so would give me negligible benefits until
quite a few years down the road[1]
> You obviously do not agree. As you frantically point out, that is your
> right.
Watch me wave my arms frantically :-)
> That doesn't mean you _are_ right :-)
>
I never claimed that excercising my rights made me right :-)
> By the way, isn't it a fact that the 2001 tax cut package, while
> lowering marginal rates, is in fact a more "progressive" tax scale?
>
It keeps the former progressive scale intact, yes. I doubt that congress
would've supported Bush, had he proposed a flat tax (they're not that
dumb). I also support the rate cuts, despite their flaws.[2]
However, a little known fact about it is that it gives an extra ~1% cut
to the highest bracket (those earning salaries over ~$300,000) while it
doesn't change the bottom two brackets one iota[3][4]
[1] (keep in mind this is supposed to be a stimulous plan for the
current, I.e. right now, economic situation).
[2] I don't, however, support a large budget deficit so, if Bush wants
the cuts to go through, he'll have to justify making some spending cuts.
[3] See the "Tax Rates Decline" box near the bottom of
http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/
[4] See my earlier comments about increasing the amount of income
taxed at the lowest bracket, which would also give people in the upper
tax bracket more discressionary income to invest in stocks if they so
pleased.
Reply to: