|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
list,
this was a private conversation that we decided could benefit from going
public. the crux of the discussion was
1. how did a cut in the captial gains tax stimulate investment in public
companies since stocks have always been seen for their value to appreciate
rather than just a tax savings mechanism or perferrable tax shelter (i.e
over competing investments).
2. are there other countries where a consumption based tax has worked?
any and all comments are welcomed.
regards,
brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Massey [mailto:bnm03@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 7:13 AM
To: Phil Lane
Subject: RE: is this the beginning of .....
"> The best thing for the economy is to reduce impediments"
it seems like this would be true. but what i've always then jumped to was
the idea that once the new equilibrium is reached and you can't juice it any
more with tax incentives, what happens then? my opinion of why Greenspan is
against a wholesale tax cut is because it creates inflationary pressures
that the economy doesn't need right now. i think his reasoning is tax cuts
should be reserved for times when the economy needs stimulating and
consumers need to be encouraged to spend. i don't think the idea of trickle
down economics (ie tax cuts) works as well as deficit reduction. and how
you maintain your economic prosperity once all the fuel (taxes cut to the
bone or deficit all gone) is gone is something i couldn't comment on either.
the truth is out there,
brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Lane [mailto:patterntrader@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 7:01 AM
> To: frwd@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: is this the beginning of .....
>
>
> The best thing for the economy is to reduce impediments to business as far
> as possible.
> Just going on bone-head reasoning here -
>
> Don't know about other countries. I don't think a pure consumption tax has
> ever been tried. Probably never will be!
>
> Obviously this is not my area of expertise. Maybe somebody on the O-list
> will have some further comments if you feel like posting something....
>
> radical economist wannabe,
> phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Massey <bnm03@xxxxxxx>
> To: Phil Lane <patterntrader@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:50 AM
> Subject: RE: is this the beginning of .....
>
>
> > "Public companies pay plenty of taxes."
> >
> > IYO has this hurt the economy. Actually, as we both know
> business have a
> > plethora of tax deductions too that the private individual doesn't have.
> > Every expense is a 1:1 tax writeoff and there are tons of other
> loop holes
> > that companies exploit such as writing options and lots of
> others that i'm
> > not aware of. i know from experience that this offsets a lot of taxes.
> >
> > also, i'd be interested to know what other countries have used the
> > comsumption model of taxation and how it has worked out.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Phil Lane [mailto:patterntrader@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 5:54 AM
> > > To: frwd@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: is this the beginning of .....
> > >
> > >
> > > for the first time in many years it became attractive to invest in
> stocks,
> > > i.e. finance new companies, and it lead to a huge wave of new
> businesses
> > > being created.
> > >
> > > Public companies pay plenty of taxes. In my opinion it's regressive,
> just
> > > like income tax. They should tax concumption, not income. This is the
> only
> > > fair way.
> > >
> > > imho,
> > > phil
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Brian Massey <bnm03@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: Phil Lane <patterntrader@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:22 PM
> > > Subject: RE: is this the beginning of .....
> > >
> > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > This is an interesting point and one that I'd like to learn more
> about.
> > > > What doesn't make sense to me is how a company transforms
> itself from
> a
> > > tax
> > > > shelter to a company driven to produce a leading edge
> product and thus
> a
> > > > leading stock? The mindsets and objectives are at complete
> > > opposite ends
> > > of
> > > > the spectrum IMO. I would think that a tax shelter (if that's
> > > what you're
> > > > saying) would stay a tax shelter and that a company with the
> > > objective of
> > > > growing the biz and producing a specific product would be
> started with
> > > that
> > > > goal in mind, not as a tax shelter. The logic of this
> message implies
> > > that
> > > > people only started the companies after regan cut captial gains
> > > and a tax
> > > > incentive was created and that the objective of capitalizing on the
> > > growing
> > > > trend in PCs was an afterthought.
> > > >
> > > > Could you clarify.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Brian.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Phil Lane [mailto:patterntrader@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:33 PM
> > > > > To: tradejacker@xxxxxxxxxxxx; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: is this the beginning of .....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It was the cap gains tax cut - people went out and
> started up these
> > > > > companies that have become today's leading stocks.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <tradejacker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:16 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: is this the beginning of .....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > reagan and microsoft and intel and the new paradigm
> economics are
> > > > > interrelated....who
> > > > > > or what was the trigger makes the stuff debated by future
> historians
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TJ
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|