Take a gander at this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/917639.asp?pne=11947&0ct=-300

This is a fine example of how the Republican party is the best welfare friend the rich have. Note the part about accountants recommending to their clients to purchase one, compliments of the American taxpayer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2747153.stm

Economists attack Bush's 'madness'

More than 400 economists, led by 10 Nobel prize winners , have criticised President George W Bush's economic policy in the US press.

In a full-page advertisement in the New York Times newspaper, the economists said that proposed tax cuts would not help the economy in the short term.

They also said the planned cuts would benefit rich people the most.

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz told the BBC's World Business Report that Mr Bush's plans were " fiscal madness, fiscal irresponsibility ".

President George W Bush could spend less than a sixth of what he is planning to on stimulating the economy, Mr Stiglitz said.

"When you are designing a tax programme, you look for the biggest bang for the buck," he said.

"So rather than spending $600bn on the tax proposal that Bush has, the kind of proposals I'm talking about would cost under $100bn and deliver enormous amounts, directly and in the short run, without delivering huge long-run deficits."

Mr Stiglitz is a well-known thorn in the side of more conservative economists.

Formerly a senior figure in both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, he stepped down in order to criticise both agencies, and the US too, for their policies towards the developing world.

He is also a staunch critic of the current White House - and a signatory of Tuesday's advert in the New York Times.

The campaign is backed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington DC think tank.

Mr Stiglitz was at pains to stress that far from improving the situation, the package Mr Bush is pushing would make things worse by stocking up massive deficits for the future.

The tax cuts would mostly benefit taxpayers who are already wealthy, and are therefore the most unlikely immediately to spend their windfall - which, he said, is what the economy needs.

More than half Mr Bush's planned spending is devoted to removing tax on share dividends, but most taxpayers are already exempt through holdings in pension funds and similar vehicles, he said.

"You should get money out to people who will spend it and spend it quickly," he said.

"So that means getting money to the unemployed, who have had their consumption cut back, so that would make a big difference."
A proper stimulus package would also give money to the individual states, almost all of whom are experiencing a revenue crunch as the tax take falls and so - under balanced budget rules - must slash spending.
Achievments of the tax-cuts:

1. Zero impulse for the economy.

2. Bigger federal-deficits in the future (and the federal debt is huge).

3. Shameless redistributing of wealth -> The rich don't pay taxes, the average Americans pay taxes for the well-being of the rich.

-> A tax-cut is a subvention. Instead of taking money, money stays with the consumer. Stimulation of economy through subvention of the consumer. The average American is the consumer, not the rich American. The average American uses his money every day to buy the things he needs. He needs a tax-cut.

The tax cuts would mostly benefit taxpayers who are already wealthy, and are therefore the most unlikely immediately to spend their windfall - which, he said, is what the economy needs. That's a well known fact out of economic science. As Henry Ford knew, you won't sell anything, if there's no consumer. The average worker, who gets laid of, stops consuming.

Giving people who have already money, more money (subventioned by the average American) doesn't stimulate consumption. Why would it ?

Yago

I would hate to say that I doubt your source, but if the shoe fits...

From the article

They also said the planned cuts would benefit rich people the most. Well duh! Since only the "rich" pay any significant taxes, the only significant way to give tax cuts is to give it to the "rich". Of course if any one would actually look at the tax cuts, they would see that it is not only the rich who get the benefit.

Mr Stiglitz is a well-known thorn in the side of more conservative economists. Nice way of saying Stiglitz is a liberal. Stiglitz is only seen as an "expert" by Democrats. I read rumors that if he didn't step down from his last position he was going to be terminated for "undisclosed" reasons. :rolleyes:

Mr Stiglitz was at pains to stress that far from improving the situation, the package Mr Bush is pushing would make things worse by stocking up massive deficits for the future. Another stupid statement. The tax cuts as planned over the next 10 years are less than 2% of the Federal budget. That is like someone who makes $40k a year spending an extra $800. Anyone remember the story of Chicken Little (THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!).

The tax cuts would mostly benefit taxpayers who are already wealthy, and are therefore the most unlikely immediately to spend their windfall - which, he said, is what the economy needs. Another stupid statement. That statement implies that all those rich people are just going to take that money and put in their "Scrooge McDuck" vault. What they don't spend they will invest, another boon to the economy. God this is too easy!

More than half Mr Bush's planned spending is devoted to removing tax on share dividends, but most taxpayers are already exempt through holdings in pension funds and similar vehicles, he said. No one is making a big deal out of this, but this is all about behavior modification. No one wants to see another dot.gone bust, so you encourage people to invest in solid companies. Companies that pay dividends have positive cash flow from operations (99% of the time), something that WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing and Tyco never had on their books. There is nothing sinister about this plan.

"You should get money out to people who will spend it and spend it quickly," he said. See the section above about how stupid it is to say that the rich don't "spend" excess money.

"So that means getting money to the unemployed, who have had their consumption cut back, so that would make a big difference." The best way to get money to the unemployed, unless you want to create more unemployed (something the Democrats would love right about now), is to GET THEM EMPLOYED! The best way to do that is to get industry working, and that is accomplished by A. people spending and B. investment in industry.

A proper stimulus package would also give money to the individual states, almost all of whom are experiencing a revenue crunch as the tax take falls and so - under balanced budget rules - must slash spending.
How the hell does giving tax dollars appropriated from the people at the Federal level to the States encourage economic growth? The States increased spending during the good times, and now they don't want to tighten their belts up during the bad times. What state has the highest economic growth in the US at the moment (and the least budgetary problems)? Florida, where they have been significantly cutting taxes! Ok Dems, how do you explain that one?

Sorry Yago, but your source of info is a Democrat with an agenda, and his arguments are not logically or economically sound. This is back to the theory that the Democrats want the economy in the tank, because they will do anything to get back in power! And yes, the Republicans would probably do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

Darkwolf -- And how would that be different from a conservative with an agenda? The economy is already in the tank for a large number of Americans, so your attack on the Dems doesn't make a lot of sense.

You also make assumptions that the rich will invest their tax cut and that will put people back to work. That is a difficult assumption to prove in the real world (I guess an SUV can be considered an investment). That is classic trickle down theory: Make the rich richer and somehow it will benefit the vast majority of Americans. It did not work for Reagan and it won't work for Shrub either. But then it's really not intended to do anything for the average American in the first place. So what's the point?

[ May 25, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

3. Shameless redistributing of wealth -> The rich don't pay taxes, the average Americans pay taxes for the well-being of the rich.
Here is a neat link you should look at before making comments like that:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Also, just my opinion, but in a lot of ways I'd be more interested in what a bona fide genius like, oh say, Warren Buffett had to say than lots of other people since someone of Buffett's magnitude can not be dismissed as a mere liberal. Heh look, Warren Buffett speaks out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer

Laches -- Thanks for all the neat links. It is an interesting point that there need not be any redistribution of wealth towards the direction of the rich, since they already have two-thirds of the nation's wealth anyway.

According to the "trickle downers," if we gave the rich the remaining one-thrid, we would all be better off. Don't cha know? :roll:

Clearly the tax break isn't a case of redistributing the wealth. If anything, it is a case of reducing the amount of redistribution going on.

I find it awfully suspicious that the president who has recieved the largest financial donations of all time (in a bad economy no less...and by a lot) passes huge tax breaks. I would be willing to bet those tax breaks will benefit those donors.

But I will ruin my credibility and frankly admit I can't stand his redneck, truck driving, fake accent, moronic speech pattern, poor enunciating, nervous, browbeating ass. George Bush Jr. sucks. I really don't like that guy.

It'll support those donating to his opponents in the exact same way. After all, it ain't like Ted Turner and Warren Buffett get their meals in a soup line.

For good current and more common examples of this, check out some articles about the fund raising of John Edwards recently.

Laches -- I will be glad to compare who gets the most funding and from whom: Shrub or Edwards.

Just what does "rich" mean anymore? According to the opponents of the tax cut, Velcro and I are rich. But if you ask our local township supervisors, we're undesirably poor since we can't afford to buy the only kind of new housing they're allowing in this area - $600K+ for a huge house on a huge lot. :cry:

I found this assessment of the tax cut package rather interesting. It's from The Motley Fool (http://www.fool.com)
.
In the immediate, more money. Here's a rundown:

The long-term capital gains tax rate falls from 20% to 15%.


The dividend tax rate is capped at 15% for the four highest (most common) tax brackets.


The top tax bracket declines from 38.6% to 35%.


All other tax brackets aside from the very lowest decline by two percentage points.


The child credit rises to $1,000, so millions of families will receive $400 checks within months.


Married couples get relief from the "marriage penalty," and their standard deduction rises to $9,500, twice a single person's deduction.


Small businesses may expense $100,000 annually, up from $25,000, until 2005.


$20 billion goes for emergency funding to state budgets that are sinking under deficits
Your paycheck should be larger after July 1, because withholding will decrease to reflect the new tax rates. Meanwhile, the new capital gains rate applies to investments made on or after May 6, 2003, and only to investments held one year or longer.


As with all things "taxes," the devil is in the details, which reveal most of these cuts as temporary. After 2004, most cuts in personal income taxes will end, and in 2009 (Bush would just be leaving office should he win a second term), the dividend tax would revert to marginal tax rates again. Theoretically, at least.


"Sunset" provisions in the bill dictate that most of these tax breaks end, but subsequent political parties wishing to maintain the public's favor may very well continue them. Should this prove the case in years ahead, critics say, the cost of this tax cut could actually rise to the trillions.


The benefits of roughly 60% of the $350 billion tax cut, or about $210 billion, should be felt by the public and by companies this year and next, and bill supporters suggest this money will help boost the economy quickly. Many disagree. This is the third tax cut in Bush's less than three years in office. Warren Buffett, for one, disagrees with the dividend tax cut.

I don't pretend to know as much about economics as you folks, but I think George W. could find out a way to heal cancer and the Dems and their allies would find fault with it. In all fairness, that's their job, but I figure we should watch and see what happens -- I highly doubt it will be all doom and gloom.

Rallymama -- That really is an excellent question, because most people will have a different description of the "rich." In most of my rants this includes only the very rarefied top, where the real action is. This includes the real power mongers: CEOs and other top execs of large corportions (the kind that receive 25 million just to go away), inherited wealth, such as the DuPonts, Rothchilds, etc.

I remember how Ken Lay of Enron was running around Houston with all the city politcians, hyping the baseball stadium that later became Enron field (and is now Minutemaid Park, really!). That is the kind of muscle I usually rant about.

The city made concessions to get Ken Lay's baseball field built, along with 2 other stadiums, that caused new taxes, bonds and land give-aways to the power mongers in Houston. After the stadium went through, the city talked of laying off firefighters, police, closing parks, libraries, etc. There was plenty of cash for Ken and his pet project, but not so much for the citizens of the city.

Guess who else did the same thing? Would that be George W. Bush, former owner of the Rangers baseball team. His old team was not worth much until he and his partners convinced the people of Dallas to build his team a new stadium. Once done, he of course sold the team for mcuh more than they were worth before-hand.

This is of course the worst kind of welfare for the rich, and much worse than the link I posted on SUVs. Free SUVs now look puny compared to some of the other things they get away with.

[ May 26, 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos, your definition of 'rich' changed in this thread then I think. Earlier you said the rich had 2/3 of the wealth in this nation but to come up with that number you'd have to consider anyone making over 90,000 per year 'rich.' Big difference between them and Warren Buffett or Ted Turner or Jane Fonda or Oprah or....

Which is what Rally was getting at I guess. The rhetoric of tax breaks is interesting.

Another stupid statement. That statement implies that all those rich people are just going to take that money and put in their "Scrooge McDuck" vault. What they don't spend they will invest, another boon to the economy. God this is too easy! Hm, that does not convince me fully. How do you know, that they don't spend it on a trip in Europe or East-Asia. Maybe they put it into a bank-account in some US bank, which has at the moment a policy to restrict credits to small firms and private persons ? Or, thinking about the low-Dollar, they invest in foreing shares ?

How the hell does giving tax dollars appropriated from the people at the Federal level to the States encourage economic growth? The States increased spending during the good times, and now they don't want to tighten their belts up during the bad times. What state has the highest economic growth in the US at the moment (and the least budgetary problems)? Florida, where they have been significantly cutting taxes! Ok Dems, how do you explain that one?
That's true. But wouldn't have "wise" budget-politics demanded, to not spend all the money in the 7 "good" years and build up some "backing" (lacking vocubalary) for the 7 "bad" years. Well, damage done in the past. If those states are now tightening their belts, that means they cut down spening, which cuts down consumption, which cuts down sales, which cuts down the economy. Yes, they should have been wiser in the past, now they're going to bleed for it.

Florida: Can't answer that, because I have no knowledge about specific US domestic-situations. Wild-guess: They live from senior-citicens from the east coast and don't suffer from "dot-coms" closing down ? Just a wild guess.

Well duh! Since only the "rich" pay any significant taxes, the only significant way to give tax cuts is to give it to the "rich". Of course if any one would actually look at the tax cuts, they would see that it is not only the rich who get the benefit.
I still have a problem with that. That implies, that the only federal tax-funding is coming through taxing income. I have no idea of US-domestics, but I guess they have federal "custom-duties" (sp?) on imported goods and some taxes on goods, which are sold. Surely they have "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacoo.

Nice way of saying Stiglitz is a liberal. Stiglitz is only seen as an "expert" by Democrats. I read rumors that if he didn't step down from his last position he was going to be terminated for "undisclosed" reasons.
Ok, might be my lacking English vocubalary, but "thorn in one's side" means something like:" Something which angers/hurts/enerves (Vocu.. ?) one". So, I find it a very elegant way to say that.


Another stupid statement. The tax cuts as planned over the next 10 years are less than 2% of the Federal budget. That is like someone who makes $40k a year spending an extra $800. Anyone remember the story of Chicken Little (THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!).

Ok, can't dispute that, because I have to first find some data on the budget-deficit. About the sky is falling, I don't know, maybe he is ? Because Germany (and a lot of others, incl. my country) has now the problem, that someone came in at the beginning of the 80's, hm, the sky is falling..... 20 years later. They start to discuss reforms. But I know, that when I was at school, the US foreign debt was a nearly unimaginable high number.

At Rallymama: Mam, if you and your husband are making about 600'000 bucks the year, I would consider you "well-off", if you're making about (uh, difficult in another currency) more than 1'500'000 bucks a year, I would consider you "rich".

The top tax bracket declines from 38.6% to 35%.

All other tax brackets aside from the very lowest decline by two percentage points.
38.6 - 35 = 3.6 % in the top tax bracket. I'd love to see a graphic-statistic how this changes the paid amount on the different incomes.

Edit: I asked google about the federal budget deficit:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857184/posts

The federal deficit is growing much more quickly than expected, even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq, Congressional analysts have concluded.

Analysts for the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee have raised their estimates of this year's budget shortfall by about $30 billion, some 15 percent beyond the forecast that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued only five weeks ago.

The deterioration appears to stem from the continued weakness of the economy and the stock market, and those problems could remain for a while: many economists predict anemic growth for at least the first half of 2003.

The new projections mean that the government's 2003 shortfall could soar to $400 billion if Mr. Bush's tax cuts are approved and if war costs this year run into the tens of billions of dollars.

They also mean that Mr. Bush will face new pressure either to scale back his proposals for cutting taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, or to rein in favored programs like a military buildup, domestic security and prescription drugs for the elderly.

The White House has already estimated that the budget deficit this year will hit a record $304 billion, a calculation that includes the effect of the administration's tax-cutting proposals, though not the costs of a war with Iraq.

In testimony today before the House Ways and Means Committee, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow reiterated the administration's argument that budget deficits over the next several years posed little danger. The deficits envisioned by the administration, Mr. Snow said as the committee opened hearings on the tax-cut proposals, "are really modest and clearly manageable and will not have any impact on long-term interest rates, which is the real concern."

But some independent analysts say the administration and Congress alike may be overly optimistic (Darkwolf, they say you are overly optimistic ;) ). Asked about House analysts' increasing their estimate of this year's deficit by $30 billion, Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs, said he thought the figure was too small. Beyond the revenue shortfall from October through January, Mr. McKelvey said, tax refunds during February ran about 10.9 percent higher than in February of last year.




[ May 26, 2003, 12:46: Message edited by: Yago ]

This text was posted a while ago by Vargx,

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson in Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Read it carefully.

Subject: Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson in Economics

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

-The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing

-The fifth would pay $1

-The sixth would pay $3

-The seventh $7

-The eighth $12

-The ninth $18

-The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still eat for free. But, what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
-The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
-The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
-The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
-The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
-The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
-The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,
and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good
restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

Distinguished Professor of Economics

536 Brooks Hall

University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia 30602-6254

Telephone: (706) 542-3681

Fax: (706) 542-8774 or (706) 542-3376

@Yago:
At Rallymama: Mam, if you and your husband are making about 600'000 bucks the year, I would consider you "well-off", if you're making about (uh, difficult in another currency) more than 1'500'000 bucks a year, I would consider you "rich". Trust me, my friend, we're NOT making that kind of money; nowhere near it! To buy that kind of housing, you need $150,000 in ready cash for downpayment and closing costs, and THEN you have to be able to afford the mortgage payments on your monthly income - along with everything else, like utilities and groceries and day care and a little fun and... (there are plenty of mortgage payment calculators out there on the 'Net but I can't go find one right now due to parenting) Even with the current low rates, that's not in our budget. :(

I consider myself a conservative, but I think this "tax cut" is just a waste of time. If it was actually cutting something, instead of just borrowing all the money to pay for it, I'd support it. As long as Washington refuses to cut spending we're always going to have big deficits and big debt. And I doubt that'll ever happen...both parties are committed to bankrupting the United States, the only real difference is how they do it.

Laches,

Thank you for that link, I lost it a while back and haven't had time to go find it.

For those of you who think that the "poor" pay all the taxes, and that the rich skate (from the link Laches provided above:

Top 1% paid 37.42% of total Federal Income Taxes collected
Top 5% paid 56.47%: The top 5% of wage earners pay over half of the taxes in this nation!
Top 10% paid 67.33%
Top 25% paid 84.01%: Those people making more than $55k per year pay almost all the taxes
Top 50% paid 96.09%: Top 50% cuts off at $28k.
So those making less that $28K per year pay less than 4% of the US Fed Income taxes.

I can tell you from experience, that if they have kids, they are getting back more than they ever paid in. And with Bush's "only for the rich" tax cuts they will be getting back even more.

HMMM, how does that benefit the rich?

For the good of society, I have no problem with the rich paying more taxes, but I don't believe that anyone should get back more than they pay in.

@ Yago: (Sorry Laches!)

Hm, that does not convince me fully. How do you know, that they don't spend it on a trip in Europe or East-Asia. Maybe they put it into a bank-account in some US bank, which has at the moment a policy to restrict credits to small firms and private persons ? Or, thinking about the low-Dollar, they invest in foreing shares ?
Some will spend it overseas, but to think that the majority of it, or even a large percentage will leave the US is a bit naive. As far as US back restricting credit to small firms and private persons, I have no idea what you are talking about. I left the banking industry 3 years ago, and still have family who are executives in community banks, and I can tell you that they will loan money to anyone who is qualified, without restrictions other than ability to repay, and in some cases that is not an issue. There are programs like SBA Loans, Women and Minorities business loans, and CRA act low-income loans, that waive many of the qualifications. Low $ is a 2 edged sword, it makes speculating on exchange rates look attractive, but it helps US companies to sell more exports, while hurting foreign companies, so I don't see that as an incentive to foreign investment.

If those states are now tightening their belts, that means they cut down spening, which cuts down consumption, which cuts down sales, which cuts down the economy. So increasing Federal taxes and providing it to the States increases consumption? You are taking money away from people, money that will be spent or invested, and giving it to the individual states so that they can spend it? The only way that could be a benefit is if the states spent it more wisely than the people. Unless you have fallen for the Democratic mantra that "only government can properly spend your money", this is a false premise. Economists (and I am talking about economists who get paid to be right and fired if they are wrong, not your worthless "University" and "Nobel Prize" winning theorists who couldn't last 3 months in the business world) have known for a long time that privately spent money has a far greater effect on the economy than government expenditures. And yes the governments in this nation should have been saving for a "rainy day", but government by its nature can't do that, all the more reason to limit government to its most minimal functions.

In answer to the Florida question, it is growing economically. There are new businesses moving there every day, because the tax codes make it attractive

I have to address the statement you made to Rallymama. If a person makes more that $366,000 per year in the US, they are in the top 1% of wage earners. The income you are talking about is almost exclusively in the range of small corporations. There are an extremely small number of CEO's who make over a million a year, and don't fool yourself by believing that you would even personally know anyone who makes a 7 figure salary, most Americans don't.

And last I love this statement:

The White House has already estimated that the budget deficit this year will hit a record $304 billion, a calculation that includes the effect of the administration's tax-cutting proposals, though not the costs of a war with Iraq. In absolute dollars you are correct, but then in absolute dollars, the average poor person is making $15k a year more than they did in 1980. Of course absolute $'s doesn't mean anything. If you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, it is far from a record, but the Democrats can't make a statement that will shock all the sheeple if they admit that! :rolleyes:

[ May 27, 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

@Darkwolf:
@ Laches: That @ was @Yago I think and not @me @ all : )

Laches - Yes, my definition of the rich did change in the thread, because no one really commented (you included) on the particular link that I posted. I am being serious, but was this a bad link? cause I am able to access it. The question I was hoping to raise was this: How do other classes of society pay, when the government provides welfare for the upper class in the way of huge, expensive SUVs?

The impact is of course not only the cost to the taxpayer. but also the impact on energy cost/environment. As is noted in the link, these SUVs are large polluters.

You in particular, since you are concerned with my defintion of the rich, may want to address an issue with a stand of your own. In particular what impact such tax breaks have on the rest of society, since most can't afford a 70,000.00 vehicle in the first place.

Edit: As far as the rich not showing up for dinner: I say good riddance. Take your lobbies, tax accountants, lawyers, crooked politcians with you when you leave.

[ May 26, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

1) Not sure how commenting on SUV's or not forces you to change your definition of 'rich'

2)Only 2 vehicles on the list at the link are 70,000 + (click on the fact files) which is the number you talk about in your post above. A lot (most) range between 22k-50k. These type of vehicles then are hardly only owned by the 'rich' as you define them as the Ken Lay types of the world. If the tax break was on, say, Rolls Royces then I'd see your point but it isn't, it is on some of the most popular vehicles on the road owned by lots of people from lots of economic backgrounds -- it is peculiar to try to cast this as a rich vs. poor issue imo.

3) The issue of whether SUV's should receive a tax break due to pollution is entirely unrelated to rich vs. poor imo. Again, lots of people not fitting your definition of rich (the last def'n anyways) own SUVs. IMO, we should tax gasoline to account for externalities such as pollution or the cost of going to war in the middle east etc. This would create an economic incentive to get better gas mileage. This should be coupled with lots of other things imo like increased standards (the last increase was in the 70's and fuel efficiency has actually decreased since then.) That would provide an economic incentive from the consumer side creating demand while increasing standards spurring technological development.

That said, it isn't a rich vs poor issue. Most people who own these vehicles aren't rich. Heck, the article begins in big bold that it has been used to benefit "small businesses" which aren't run by the Ken Lays or Warren Buffetts of the world.

Again, Laches if you read my post carefuly, you will notice that I say "the rich I usually rant about." I was careful to quailfy this type of rich from the well-off in my original topic. I would suggest that you go back in reread that post.

BTW, your argument is not very good because the poor typically don't drive SUVs. Unless, you define middle lower class as "poor." Maybe it's you who needs to define your terms a little clearer. I'm not sure what you mean by the "poor," since they are driving SUVs that a lot of others can't afford.

As to the cost of the SUVs, I'm not sure of your rant that there was only a couple that meets that price of 70,000.00. Did I have to list them all for you? Ah, it would be only the fairly well-off who would be able to buy them at that price, correct? That was te point of listing those models at 70,000.00.

In Houston we have new inspections because of the poor air quality of our area. Sorry that you are not familiar with it. When you take your vehicle in for inspection you now must pass very strict air emissions standards. The higher cost will impact the poor much greater. Because many of them own older cars that need to be able to pass these standards. The cost can be as much as 700.00 - 800.00 to replace a converter. Not only that but the inspection itself is now very costly. This new emissiosn standard was ordered by the EPA.

Anyway, I am glad you are responding to the topic at hand. We still have not touched on the energy/cost part of the problem of this kind of tax welfare for the well-off. But I will.

Edit: By the way, I never once mentioned the poor directly -- you did. Again, go back and read my posts.

I'm not sure what to make of this abrasiveness.

The tax break covers things like astro vans, econo vans and wagons, dodge vans etc all in the 20 k range. So, to try to cast the issue as a tax break for the rich because two vehicles on the list cost more than 70k and ignoring that most of the vehicles affected will be family vans and pickups that are far more prevalent on the road is misleading. It may be a stupid tax break, but a "tax break for the rich" it is not and characterizing it as such only galvanizes the issue.

I'm not sure what to make of you barb of "sorry that you are not familiar with it." I think it is a rather tangential topic. I take it that you're upset with these 'tax breaks for the rich' because they drive the gas guzzling SUV's and the poor have to comply with new resulting standards which disproportionately weigh on them? Well, for the record, I am familiar with the CAA (and most of the other US environmental regulation) having worked in this area briefly in the past on an interim basis with the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (who deals with the CWA). The EPA would've ordered what it did only after your area's continual failure to comply with their duty under the CAA to meet certain Air Quality Standards. This is drifting, but the CAA is set up differently than the CWA and the CAA relies on the local government to come up with plans to comply with the standards mandated in the CAA. Only after failing to come up with and implement the plan (for many, many years)did the feds through the EPA step in. I for one applaud the EPA.

The point of all that is this: Houston was out of compliance before the tax break and was out of compliance since the 1970's. To draw a link between the tax break and your non-compliance is incorrect in my opinion because you weren't in compliance long before SUV's came around (though any vehicle with poor mileage may exacerbate the problem but mpg for all cars has dropped since the 70's with a couple notable exceptions for certain makes and models).

Is pollution a problem? Yes. Should we seek to address the pollution caused by vehicles? IMO, yes.

Is this a "tax break for the rich?" No. Are the rich and their gas guzzling vehicles the cause of our pollution? No, highly oversimplified.

As far as definitions: middle class (who owns most of the SUV's) should be defined as 2X to 10X the poverty line which varies based upon size of the family and the year. From that you can see my definitions. My definition varies from some in that the top end of my middle class is higher than some others who stop as low as 6X poverty level while some people extend the class higher than 10X.

That's my definition and I'm sticking to it.

First, Laches, it is not my intention to be "abrasive." I just don't understand why you keep misrepresenting my views. And that was not a "barb" about the emission standards here in Houston. A lot of people in the country are unaware of our situation here. I have no idea why you are getting defensive here.

Second, it is my belief that this is a tax loop hole for the rich, not the kind of rich that has a lot of political muscle, (what do they care about a few extra thousand to write-off on an SUV), but the "rich" that would earn a heftier tax cut than most of the population in the US. Note that the article says that now accountants are now recommending that some "doctors and laywers" now buy these kinds of vehicles. Can you now make the connection?

Also, like me, you must care about the environment. Now, those who would not want to buy one of these higher polluting, higher energy using vehicles in the first place, may do so because their accountants advise them. Please, read the entire piece. Thus, adding more pollution to the Houston area's already bad situation. An extra, 700 - or 800 dollars can make a large difference to someone who only make 10.00 an hour and lives by him/herself. Believe me, I know people who fall into this situation.

Thirdly: why should someone who cannot afford a 20k vehicle pay for someone who can? Also, for someone who cares about fuel standards and pollution standards and may not want to buy an SUV, now pay for someone else to do so? I have a Honda, so why should I now pay for my neighbor to write off his SUV.

Fourth:Notice that the SUVs, must weigh a huge 6000 lbs with a load. 6000 lbs! Lt me ask you this: how much of a strain does more 6000lbs add to the streets and highways? How many Astro Vans weigh 6000 lbs?

This is a bad deal no matter how you cut it. Despite your taking into account the cheapest of the cheap on the list,a lot of these also fall into the 40,000 and 50,000 dollar range, that puts quite a few of these out of reach for a largenumber of Americans. I can't afford to spend 50,000 dollars for a Toyota whatever. Why, should I, or any other American taxpayer pay for those who can, Laches?

Once again I think some of you are blinded by hatred of "the rich".

Chandos, I did take time to read the article you posted. It was, as unfortunately many news articles are, completely one sided and biased. Even the title is misleading "Congress widens tax break on SUVs". The tax break was not on SUV, but on vehicles meeting a certin weight requirement. Many SUV's happened to fall into the same catagory that trucks and also mini-vans fall into. The article mentioned several of the cons of the tax cut, without a mention on the overwealming pros. This is NOT a tax cut for the rich. It is a tax cut intended to help thousands of corporations and small businesses.

IF you haven't read it yet, I would reccomend that you go out and pick up a copy of the book BIAS, by Bernard Goldberg. It's facinating, and this article could have been taken right from his book.

As far as your question on how many astro-vans weigh 6,000 pounds have a look here:

http://aolsvc.carguides.aol.com/cars/overview_detailed.jsp?Id=1009362

You can see the unloaded van has a weight of nearly 4,600lbs. Fully loaded it easially falls into the catagory.

I do, however, thank you for this post. I am wondering why MY accountant hasn't mentioned this new tax cut for me. I own my own corporation. And I, like thousands of others, intend to benifit from this tax break by buying an SUV in the near future. I need one for my work, and am excited.

Man, Ilandon, that is one huge van. It seats 8 people. Now I weigh 150lbs, so 8 of me is 1200lbs. 4500 and 1200, that is 5700 lbs, bear with me - (good thing I was an English major) That is close to the 6000 lbs. I guess it could weigh that amount. But it is going pretty much at the max of credibilty.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I don't hate anyone. I dislike the wealthy who subvert our political system that is true. But hate is too strong a word, Llandon. I guess I hate what they represent.

I am familiar with this book. He is a conservative who believes that the media has a liberal bias. I've seen him on TV. I don't disagree with his view: there is bias in all media. Fox and the New York Post are highly biased towards the conservative point of view; Pacifica Radio is highly biased the other way.
The bottom line is that everyone in the media has an agenda. There is no getting around that.

You seem like a nice guy, so I won't complain about having to help pay for your SUV. ;)

[ May 28, 2003, 05:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

posted. It was, as unfortunately many news articles are, completely one sided and biased. Yes, they are. Unfortunately.

At Darkwolf:
As far as US back restricting credit to small firms and private persons, I have no idea what you are talking about Sidenote joke: Banking consists of lending an umbrella to someone, while the sunshines and taking away that umbrella as soon it starts to rain.

In this case, the banking in you're country seem to react differently to recesion than in mine. They rethink every credit 6 fold, contrary to the usual 4 fold.

Low $ is a 2 edged sword, it makes speculating on exchange rates look attractive, but it helps US companies to sell more exports, while hurting foreign companies, so I don't see that as an incentive to foreign investment.
Low Dollar is bad for you. Bad for you. :D ;)

No really, it would break the goold old tradition of the trade-deficit and the export industry is not a big sector in your economy. So, the traditional domestics are hurting because imports are too expensive and the tourism industry... well, not too many tourists right now, I've heard. Some frictions with the whole wide world ? ;)

To money going abroad. I declare stalemate. I still think there's money coming from somewhere, driving my own currency into hurting heighs.

The only way that could be a benefit is if the states spent it more wisely than the people. Unless you have fallen for the Democratic mantra that "only government can properly spend your money", this is a false premise. Economists (and I am talking about economists who get paid to be right and fired if they are wrong, not your worthless "University" and "Nobel Prize" winning theorists who couldn't last 3 months in the business world) have known for a long time that privately spent money has a far greater effect on the economy than government expenditures.
I'm not in your country, so mantras of your parties are... foreign to me. I don't think only goverment can spend money wisely. That's besides the point. Goverment spends money for goverment tasks, like building roads and that stuff. So cutting down on construction projects would hurt private enterprise, which builds that roads actually. And private enterprise that usually sells stuff for the state.

"Than government expenditures". Yes, so why a tax-cut, which is nothing else but a goverment expenditure. :D How do you think goverment can wisley assess, who's taxes need to be cut ?

"worthless "University" and "Nobel Prize" winning theorists" You mean like Einstein and such ? Einstein was wrong, the relativity-theory has never been proven ? There is no such thing as a nuclear-reactor ? Light doesn't bend ? Common, people get noble-prices for reached achievements. It's somekind of "pay".

In absolute dollars you are correct, but then in absolute dollars, the average poor person is making $15k a year more than they did in 1980. Of course absolute $'s doesn't mean anything. If you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, it is far from a record, but the Democrats can't make a statement that will shock all the sheeple if they admit that! Hm, that's because democrats are copy-cats. They copy Ronnie:

We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.

Hm, stop spending, then stop taxing. The other way around ? Never stop spending but lower taxes and let the grand-children pay the bill.

Another aspect of the new tax program of Bush's was explianed to me by a Howard Dean worker (liberal competitor). Now high paid CEOs are going to be able to take large stock options - we all know most of them have them -- and from the price they aquired them, now be able to sell them at a market price and not pay taxes on the profit. It's called a "cashless options sale." Before these CEOs would have had to pay tax on this kind of transaction as income, but no longer. Maybe Darkwolf can explain if this is correct or not, since he knows quite a bit about stock transactions, and I am only taking this person's rant on it. If it's true, it sounds really, really rotten.

[ May 28, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Darkwolf,
people who are paid to be right? People like Enron (http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/0,11337,609866,00.html) (and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,634489,00.html) , nicely animated) and their pet-accounters from Merryl Lynch (http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,11337,766650,00.html)? They have been not-so-quite-right in the past time, and not-so-quite-honest either. These people who get paid to be right have a primary interest in their own money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,11337,862090,00.html

I'd really trust more in some worthless academic noble price winner rather than a "paid-to-be-right" guy. As a comparedly *poor* academic he usually has less own financial interets. He may be more neutral and perhaps less subject to lobbyism, bribery and less tempted to fraud.

Another aspect of the new tax program of Bush's was explianed to me by a Howard Dean worker (liberal competitor). Now high paid CEOs are going to be able to take large stock options - we all know most of them have them -- and from the price they aquired them, now be able to sell them at a market price and not pay taxes on the profit. It's called a "cashless options sale." Before these CEOs would have had to pay tax on this kind of transaction as income, but no longer. Maybe Darkwolf can explain if this is correct or not, since he knows quite a bit about stock transactions, and I am only taking this person's rant on it. If it's true, it sounds really, really rotten.
Chandos, sounds like the Howard Dean representative is talking about the same thing Warren Buffett is talking about in the article I linked above. Warren Buffett's example would net him 300 + million tax free essentially and, like he says, don't blame the corporations for that -- Congress would be forcing them to do it essentially.

As an aside, I would love to be able to just afford some Berkshire-Hathaway stock -- Warren Buffett is a genius.

Just a quick question to all those opposed to the tax cut.
How much did you pay last year "net" in Federal Income Tax?
By net, I mean income tax paid minus any payments from the Feds to you; school grants and loans with the intrest paid by the government, EIC payments (the largest area of tax fraud), Federal grants for other purposes, etc . Do not count FICA taxes since they are not affected by the tax cuts.
So are you a consumer of tax money or a provider?
If you are a consumer, what in the HELL makes you think that you deserve someone elses money?

Ah! Thanks, Laches. I'm really not up this stock trading business.

Claron - I'm a citizen, voter, taxpayer. And never cheat on my taxes, and hardly ever complain about paying my share. I don't quailfy for most of what you were ranting about. So, what the "hell" are you talking about?

You did not answer my question, are you a net consumer or a net provider?


If you are a provider, why do you consider that the amount the government takes to be a fair share? Could you not do much more good with the fruits of your labor than some half-wit who cannot find productive work and must take a government job?

I guess I'm a provider, since I paid in. Are you an independent, like I am, since you think the government in run by (half-wits) Republicans and Dems?

Ragusa,

There is a difference between analysts and economists. Regardless, Enron could have had Alan Greenspan Paul Volker, and any other economist you can name, and they still would have gone in the tank because the problem was with greed, not economic forecasts.

Economics professors are great at theory, but if they could do the job, they would be out in the business world, coincidentally, paying taxes, because good economists pull down 6 figure salaries, and good college Profs are lucky to make half of that.

By the way, your nice little animation provides nothing but propaganda. I went around and clicked on all the "red" players. The highest position any of them held in Enron was VP, do you know how little influence a VP has in a major corporation, or how many of them there are? Every one else was a consultant, advisor, or received campaign funds, which proves absolutely nothing. You and I have no idea what they were advising Enron's top executives to do. For all we know they were telling Enron to ratchet it back. As a matter of fact, nothing I saw in your links that connected any anyone to anything worse than telling bad jokes and taking campaign contributions. It amazes me that people can watch someone on TV perjure himself in front of a Federal Judge, and claim that is ok, but claim that someone else who received perfectly legitimate campaign funds is dirty because the company that gave it to them turned out to be crooks. And by the way, Global Crossing was a big supporter of the Democratic Party, and none of the Dems gave back their campaign contributions (not really directed @ Ragusa, I don't think he cares one way or the other about the US political parties).

Economists (not stock analysts) who work for major corporations can't effect the economy, or stock prices, they only get one chance to slit their throats for their own interests before they are relegated to being professors, and they don't have the influence to be able to get anyone to cook the books like Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing did, so they really can't get into the "big bucks".

Just so that everyone understands the difference between and stock analyst and economist, economists don't tell you which companies' stock to pick, they tell you what industries are in a favorable position for growth. Economists don't tell you when to sell a companies stock, they forecast the potential for less that favorable conditions in a segment of the economy. Economists don't make predictions on the return of a particular mutual fund. You rarely see them on TV because people think that they are too vague and boring because they usually don't talk about the "hot" stocks and investments. They tend to look a broad ecomic trends and try to predict how they will play out.

Bottom line -- if a tax break comes down the pike and I see more money on the Net side of my paycheck, I'm happy. I bust my butt to keep my family afloat, and while I don't mind helping out the less fortunate a little, I'd rather take care of my family first, because as far as I'm concerned, they are my primary responsibility. I'm not focussed on what other people may or may not be paying -- I just want to pay less. Selfish? Maybe. But I've got bills to pay and children to raise, and the more resources I have to do that the happier I am.

I hardly know anything about economics, but if we adopted a flat tax wouldn't that make cutting taxes much easier? Everyone would get the same amount back cause everyone is paying in the same amount. No pointless back and forth about the rich getting more...

No, a flat tax wouldn't end the bickering.

First, there would be endless bickering about what the flat tax would be. You think people are bickering now? You ain't seen nothing until you imagine someone trying to implement a flat tax that would reduce the taxes on the wealthiest in the nation by a tremendous amount. See, you have to set a flat tax first right? So, what number do you pick? Currently a lot of people (about half the people in the US) pay virtually no income tax at all. Then you have tax rates from 10% all the way up to ~38%. Any single person earing more than about 67k a year will pay 30% + income tax; these are the people in the top 25% of the country, or approximately in the top 25%. (edit - for simplicity assuming a single person throughout).

So, that's the situation. What number do you pick? You'll end up raising the rate on the less well off or drastically lowering it on the well off. Either option is going to make a lot of people angry. If a flat tax were to go through, it would most likely be something like 20% or so and would really piss off people who think the rich are taking advantage of people because it would raise the rate many are paying while giving an 18% plus tax break to the anyone making ~300k per year.

Also, that would likely reduce the overall money going into the treasury by a significant amount.

No, a flat tax wouldn't end the bickering in my opinion because many people think those who are well off should have to pay more and would raise quite the cry if they don't pay their 'fair share' which equals 'a lot more.'

Imagine there was a flat tax though. Hypothetically, let's set it at 20%. Let's then compare why people would still pitch a fit if there was ever a change to the tax rate then (and let's be somewhat realistic, there would be changes over time). Compare a person making 20,000 a year with the person making 2,000,000. They are taxed 4,000 and 400,000 respectively (set aside things like breaks for children etc, assume we've two single guys.) Now, what if you drop the tax rate by 1 to 19%? They now pay 3,800 and 380,000 respectively.

Now you see why there would be bickering right? The fighting would be just like it is now. Those predisposed to dislike the "rich" will complain that it is a tax break for the rich because it saves the rich guy in the example 20,000 but the other guy only 2,000. The other side will say that the percentage cut is equal and since the rich guy pays so much more into the system he should get a bigger cut. The other side will continue to focus on the total dollar amount though and say things like: "one guy can buy new tires and the other guy can buy a new Lexis, that's not fair."

Class warfare has been around for a long time; indeed, some people really like it and inject it where it doesn't exist. It won't go away with a flat tax unfortunately.

Ok, my 5 cents to taxes again:

A. Who should pay more taxes, the one who's able to pay more money: (Imaginary numbers)

Person A: Makes 100 -> Has to give 30
Person B: Makes 50 -> Has to give 15
Person C: Makes 25 -> Has to give 7.5
Person D: Makes 12.5-> Has to give 3.75

But oops, Person D needs 12 to pay for food and housing, has only 0.5 left. So, taxes have to be reduced from 3.75 to 0.5 -> The procent share for the lowest has to be reduced. Person A paied (sp ?) 30 %, Person D paied 0.5, that's under 5 %, but that Person D is after paying taxes butt naked a.k.a. no dam money left, wheras Person A has still 70 left, Person C has 17.5 left.

B. Important is also the tax-structure. Does the Federal goverment gets it's money only through income taxes ? Or are there other kind of taxes, like taxes on goods and even more taxes on goods which are imported ? Let's say thoses goods-taxes are 10 %, then Person D, which needs all the money to pay for needed goods, has already payed 10 % taxes, that's 10 percent of 12.5 = 1.25, but "only" payed 0.5 for income taxes.

C. Lord Depaara made a good point. You got to lookout for yourself. If I have a calculator, find that I make a bad deal with the proposed tax-cuts, I say no way, the other way around. The mantra of the Republicans is: Everyone who can use a calculator and doesn't agree with them has a "blind hatred for the rich".

D. I, oppoesd to the "republicans" believe not, that Goverment spends it's money wisley

E. The Republicans have a strong believe, that the only one who can spend money wisely is the goverment, becuase the goverment in this case is spending money it has not, and uses it to cut-taxes for a special interest group. There's ofcourse the Republican mantra, he, who does not believe, that goverment is the only one who can spend money wisley, has some kind of blind hatred for the rich.

F. Again, I look for my skin and my special interest group and what's good for me is not good for others and vice-versa. I am opposed to pay welfare for the rich.

G. The Goverment is spending money through a tax-cut which it does not have. Look at the budget-deficit and say ouch.

H. Yes, the per-head games yields, that the budget-deficit and the giantic goverment is not that big, but for the Chines, which have a 4-times bigger population, the same wound would be 4-times smaller.

I. Voodoo-econocims, we cut taxes and the economy will raise again. Yep, economy grows through growth of population and through growth of productivity. So, Voodoo does not yield results, if you don't have Bill Gates.

J. Sadly, in our country, they start too, reading too much Hayek. But as long we got enough people who can use calculators, they will not ruin our economy.

K. What does a European like me care for the US-economy ? The same worry, which he shares with the Japanes and Canadians. The reasion for the existence of Americans is to buy goods. If they rape their economy, all western economies together are f*** up. Only China remains as horse which pulls the world. ....... dam it, SARS.

With the US budget deficit spiralling to unheard-of levels, any hint that dollar assets are going to lose value is enough to drive some investors elsewhere, dealers said. The Americans are fleeing from the Dollar.

Credit rating agencies have downgraded Japanese government bonds to below those of Botswana. Yet why doesn't the yen depreciate?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2948988.stm

The Bush administration reportedly buried a report commissioned by the US Treasury which predicted a budget deficit of over $44,000bn and called for tax rises.

The Bush administration has been heavily criticised for the tax cuts - which came on top of a 10-year $1,650bn in tax cuts in 2001 - as the US economy stagnates and unemployment rises.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/default.stm

[ May 30, 2003, 11:34: Message edited by: Yago ]

See Lord Sarevok, Yago shows a flat tax wouldn't end the bickering because he apparently thinks that it would be inherently unfair and that a "rich" man should pay not only more money but a higher rate as well. At least, if you can determine A. of his post to mean anything else let me know.

Yago, I really think most of what you wrote is tangential to the broader subject of taxes which was tangential on the original point anyways (for which I'm to fault.)

Hey if this is a stagnant economy, keep it coming! My stocks are up over 8% so far this year, and they've been going through the roof on the rumors and now the reality of the tax cuts. I'm still a little under 8% in the red overall due to the last couple of years, but that's much better than I was just a few months ago.

Flat taxes are would be ok, if expenditure on the other hand would be in check. If taxes are cut, while expenditure rises, like the growth of big goverment in the 80ies, it means that the burden of this expenditures are distributed among the remaining payers, resp. those payers, who's taxes haven't been cut in similar proportions. So, generally, a tax-cut could would demand, that the budget is not in the red numbers. If the budget is in giantic red numbers, the payment of those debts are shifted to those, who aren't benifiting of a tax cut.

Ummm, how are we supposed to afford this? No one has answered that. Or even thought about it. That's probably something important to be considered. Nahhh.

Well, the theory is that the improved economy stimulated by these tax cuts will pay for it...

Well, the theory is that the improved economy stimulated by these tax cuts will pay for it... That's why I let go of the thought of going into national economics. Too much statistics. And the bottom line is, there is one view, which is presented by Darkwolf, that the productivity growth of the US in the 80ies was stimulated through tax-cuts. Then there is the other view, which says, that the productivity growth was closely related to new industries, which developed at that time, communication and computer-industries. So, I am a representant of this view, therefore the Americans would need more of Billy Gates like guys, who develop new industries, so the economy will not end in the state, which most European countries are now in. The postponed change in goverment spending, until ... now. But the Europeans weren't saved by a computer industry, which developed here much later than in the US. A aftermath of the technology drain of the WW2 and the time period after.

Whatever happens, the rich will stay rich. The poor will more than likely stay poor. The only hope is that things will get a bit better for the middle class. Cut the taxes on the middle class and see a very happy group of people.

Lol, agreement is still possible. I agree with Lord Depaara.

Whatever happens, the rich will stay rich. The poor will more than likely stay poor. The only hope is that things will get a bit better for the middle class. Well, I periodically volunteer at a homeless shelter a friend of mine runs so I understand that there are people who, in the US, are desperately poor.

That said, I don't know that the quote is... fleshed out I guess. What I mean is, I think it apparent that there is an expanding middle class that goes well beyond a normal population increase. The growth of the middle class is radically disproportionate to the growth of the other "classes."

Also, there has been a radical explosion in terms of the number of "rich."

Further, while there are desperately poor in even the wealthiest of nations, the average "poor" person today is so much better off today than a mere century ago that it isn't even a fair comparison.

So, while I understand the "rich get richer" viewpoint I think it can lead to a mistaken view that wealth, economics, etc is a zero sum game.

EDIT -- given that one of the asserted problems having to do with SUV's was the pollution being caused by the "rich" who drive them, I thought this was relevant:

http://autos.msn.com/advice/standardart.aspx?contentid=4020586&src=MSN

I particularly noted the Lexis mentioned since it is an SUV for the "rich."

[ May 31, 2003, 02:06: Message edited by: Laches ]

Oh yes, I'm sure all those folk at the country club, with all the SUVs parked out front, are very concerned for the environment. In fact, I bet most of them are card carrying Green Peace members. Most of them probably work at soup kitchens also, forcing them to miss a few rounds of golf.

Of course, that's when they are not down at their tax accountant's office complaining about how much they pay in taxes, or writing their congressmen, trying to prevent an increase in the mininum wage (while giving themselves huge pay raises). Heck, if there weren't any poor people to look after, how else would they handicap their golf games?

[ May 31, 2003, 03:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]