On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 01:27:38PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > It's a tax cut, not a benefits increase. > > If you have no tax liability, you're not eligible for a tax *cut*. > What can you cut off of $0?
True enough. But I think the point, that apparently he made quite poorly, is that this tax cut is reputed to be an economic stimulus package. But the tax cut will put the most money into rich people's pockets, a moderate payout to middle-income people with children, but little or no money will be added into low-income people's pockets. This is the exact opposite of the optimal distribution for stimulating the economy. Rich people make spending decisions almost independently of how much their income is for a given year. Ditto, but to a lesser extent, for middle-income people. But low-income people tend to live hand-to-mouth and will increase consumption immediately if they come into some money. So, to bill this as a tax cut to stimulate the economy is misleading, since if it were REALLY designed mostly to stimulate the economy, it would be MORE progressive, not less. Certainly far less than half of that $350B will really get injected into the economy quickly as the tax bill was structured. Most of it will end up sitting in rich people's bank and brokerage accounts. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
