Tuesday, January 07, 2003

In their January 7th Editorial, the New York Times again makes the case that the tax cut proposed by the Bush Administration would go directly to the 'most well-heeled Americans.'

One would think that these so-called 'rich' American would be a small number. Drawing from the Joint Economic Committee's own report (, the top 50% of taxpayers account for over of the taxes paid in this country. The bottom 50%? Less than 4%.

So any tax cut that is seeminly directed at 'the rich' is, in some ways, correct; but only when you understand the proper definition of 'rich.'


The Charles Schwab Tax Cut
The Bush administration never met a domestic problem that tax cuts couldn't cure, and today in Chicago the president is planning to call for more of the same. The centerpiece of Mr. Bush's new economic plan is to eliminate the tax on dividends that will cost the Treasury about $300 billion over the next decade. In a theoretical world, ending the dividend tax might make sense. Unfortunately we live in the real one, where it's the wrong move at the wrong time for the benefit of the wrong people.
Ending the dividend tax will not provide the economy with a short-term stimulus — the ostensible goal of the plan. Investors won't be seeing their savings until 2004. While nobody can predict what the economy will look like then, we'd be willing to lay odds that there will still be a large and growing deficit, made continually worse by the administration's insistence on reducing revenues. Mr. Bush has made it obvious that he expects to go to war against Iraq this year. The nation learned in the past that it cannot afford the luxury of guns and butter. The same goes for guns and tax cuts, particularly when they're directed at the most well-heeled Americans.


More at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/07/opinion/07TUE1.html?ex=1042606800&en=b8c75b5775826766&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook