|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Steve. The important point here is that all the so-called experts and
mainstream media are predicting that tax revenue will fall if Bush reduces
tax rates, when the historical evidence clearly indicates the opposite could
be true. I mentioned three times in US history where RATES were reduced,
but REVENUE increased. You stated you believe US tax rates are relatively
low, but what are you basing this on? The federal government is currently
consuming 20.1% of GDP in taxes. Before Clinton, that figure had never gone
above 19% since WWII. The reason for this is good old bracket creep.
People are earning more, which is pushing them into higher tax brackets. The
last time we experienced such bracket creep was during Carter (caused by
inflation). Reagan reduced income tax rates, and not only did tax revenue
increase, but it grew at the fastest rate since the 20's...
Can I say for sure that revenue will go up if Bush cuts rates? No, but the
historical evidence is very compelling. Even if the rate cuts were revenue
neutral, the surpluses would be so large that bond rates would have to fall
because of massive debt retirement.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven W. Poser (psn)" <swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 8:53 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Re: While the judges decide...on track
> I knew when I wrote that that I would get that comment. The capital gains
> tax change was certainly going to increase taxes since it permitted years
of
> gains to be taken at advantaged tax rates. The cuts in corporate taxes
also
> made companies more profitable and permitted the stock market to perform
at
> a record pace. At this point, US tax rates (Federal) are relatively low.
> However, the take of taxes for people earning under some amount, which I
do
> not know enough to say is if far higher due to regressive taxes such as
> sales taxes, sin taxes (which I do not have a problem with), etc. They can
> cut taxes on the wealthiest if they take the tax rate to zero at a much
> higher level than where it is now. Why do people earning around $70K pay
the
> same as people earning a million. And why is the effective rate higher in
> the middle of it all as they take away tax deductions? Raise the level
where
> deductions get taken away, and then increase the tax on the really big
> earners (the half million type folks, not the 70K-200K folks or there
> abouts - I do not know exactly where the bubble is).
>
> Of course, I could use the Democrat argument that the rich are getting
> richer and the poor are getting poorer, but I am not familiar enuf with
the
> stats to be sure that is correct.
>
> ---
> Steven W. Poser, President
> Poser Global Market Strategies Inc.
> http://www.poserglobal.com
> swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Tel: 201-995-0845
> Fax: 201-995-0846
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BruceB [mailto:bruceb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 12:37 AM
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RT] Re: While the judges decide...on track
>
>
> Steve, in saying Bush would increase the deficit you're saying that his
tax
> cut would reduce the amount of tax revenue flowing into the Federal
> Treasury.
>
> Just out of curiosity, when the capital gains tax RATE was reduced a
couple
> of years ago, did capital gains tax REVENUE go up or down? When Ronald
> Reagan cut personal income tax RATES in the 80's, did tax REVENUE go up or
> down? When Kennedy cut RATES in the 60's, did tax REVENUE go up or down?
>
> Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> Bruce
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/152424/_/974999532/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
|