From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:11:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <Bw854x.I9v@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>: It's a chicken and egg deal, Paul. When the rich invest, jobs are created.
>
>I know the theory.  I just don't believe it.  I don't accept that a
>change in the tax laws is going to make significant difference in
>investment patterns.  I am concerned that giving tax breaks for highly
>speculative types of investments, usually described at purchases of
>precious metals, art, land and the like are really going to help the
>economy.  I am concerned that investors will liquidate assets to get
>the tax break and then spend or invest the money in ways that will not
>help the U.S. economy, i.e., invest overseas or purchase imports.  

Then structure the tax system so that you pay regular tax rates when you
liquidate, but give a tax break on dividends.

>:Paul, Trickle Down/Supply Side *works*. The 80s proved that. The 80s were 
>: properous for most of the USA. What doesn't work is tax and spend -- the 
>: late 70s proved that, as did Congress when they pressured Bush to sign 
>: the 1990 tax bill. Things were a lot better before that.
>
>We could start an entire thread on how good the 80s were.  Poverty was
>up, particularly for children. Middle class incomes progressed only
>slightly.  The economics were very uneven and how good you thought
>things were was highly dependent on who you were, what you looked at,
>and what you compared it with.  Clearly it was great for the rich,
>so-so for the middle class, and terrible for the poor.  Overall, to be
				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>honest (proving that I'm not a politician) I would rate it good by not
>great. Also to be honest, the last four years were bad, but not
>terrible.  The extremes felt in both cases were as much psychological
>as economic.

Like the Jew said, it's no shame to be poor, but it's no great honor,
either. I'd say that it's always terrible for the poor by definition.

>As for "tax and spend", is this in defense of the Reagan/Bush years with
>the two highest tax increases in history, a near tripling of the national
>debt, and the massive increase in the size of government we've seen in the
>last four years?  I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Clinton does better
>than that.  (I wouldn't bet that he'll do as well as he says :-)

Well, we did have a lot of spending in the eighties to fund the Cold War.
It's over, and I think we can divert that money (the so-called "cold war
dividend"). However, it is fair to point out that while Supply Side doesn't
adversely affect the deficit -- the devil-may-care speding attitude of the
eighties did -- the "Tax and Spend" / "Invest in America" plan can.

>I don't even object to the Bush tax bill, just that he squandered it by not
>making the tough decisions, and fighting Congress for them.  The Bush talk
>of being "forced" to sign the tax bill causes me to flash on this image of
>500 some members of Congress rushing into the Oval Office and forcing Bush 
>to the wall.  If Bush could veto all those other bills, he could have vetoed
>that one.  For better or worse, Congress and Bush have to share credit/blame
>for that one.

Well, Congress would not accept the Bush budget proposal. They kept sending
up a budget with taxes attached. He could keep vetoing them, but really
screw up the government (too late?) in the meantime.

>Trickle down/Supply side didn't work.  To a great degree it never got the
>chance.  The biggest tragedy of the Reagan/Bush years is that we never got
>to see if conservative economics work or not.  Clearly, cutting taxes did
>not generate all the increased revenues expected.  If they had, the deficit
>wouldn't have taken off.  And the White House didn't have the will or the
>ability to demand spending cuts.  All we learned was that massive government
>borrowing makes the economy improve for awhile.  We've known that since
>the thirties.

Again, Supply Side coupled with a balanced budget and some common sense will
work. We wouldn't stop spending in the 80s, but that really had nothing to
do with trickle-down.

After all, the job you have has little to do with how wisely you manage
your money.

					- greg
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle