----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: Re: Wealth trends and Bush's tax cuts
> At 01:20 PM 1/26/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > >So, Bush unvails a plan to focus tax cuts on dividends, thus preferentially > >cutting the taxes of those who already are the most wealthy. The logical > >conclusion is that he thinks the trend of concentration of wealth is a good > >thing. I don't. Does anyone else agree with Bush? > > The logical conclusion of this is that Bush agrees with most ecnomists in > that the double-taxation of dividends is a bad idea. On what basis do you state that he agrees with most ecconomists? Greenspan came out against his tax cut. I saw the 450 ecconomists that signed a statement oppoising the tax cut. If you can come up with a similar statement with > 450, then there would be some basis for your claim that he agrees with most ecconomists. Now, if his tax cut were offset with other tax increases that target the same income level, then there might be a point to this. > Unfortunately, I guess that since this isn't science, you can pose your > political posturing as a "logical conclusion", right? Trickle down economics has been the basis of Republican thought for a long time. I thought 1920 was a very reasonable starting point for analyzing data. TR was a trust buster, so the clear lines between Democrats and Republicans on trickle down wasn't clear that far back. I'm not saying that Bush is an evil person, just that he believes that putting money in the hands of those who have proven that they are good at making money is the best thing for the economy. Yet, years in which this has been tried, since 1920, have proven to have lower increases. Eric put a good deal of effort in looking for 1-3 year delays, and did not see positive results for the Republicans. My view is that, given the data, trickle down economics is suspect. Do you accept trickle down as valid economics? Let me ask you again: do you think it is best that virtually all of the benefits in a rising economy apply only to a small minority of the citizens? Should the rest of the people accept the fact that they don't deserve to do any better? Bush has another double taxation he could have eliminated: taxes on the money which pays the Social Security tax. Is the fact that that mainly benefits individuals who make <75k/year and that he doesn't favor this a coincidence? What's your opinion. If, in 20 years, the inflation adjusted median income for Americans has improved from 46.2k to 50k, while the inflation adjusted mean income for the top 5% has improved from 260k to 520k, would that be just fine? What if the mean income falls to 40k, and the top 5% rises to 750k; is that fine? You talked about being fair to the top wage earners before. Is any attempt to modify the natural distribution of income that results from a free market inherently unfair? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
