Bush to annonce $600 Bn Tax Cut

[Ted Striker]

Dan,

I think the normal life cycle is 3 years, and most equipment is now going on 5+. That's just a guesstimate from things I have read or overheard and my own observation.

I am not sure what the tax code says about lifespan.

[Adam Smith]

Asset life in the tax code varies with type of asset ... which lets some of the individual industries use some political pull. IIRC, airframes get written off long before their useful life. Oil drilling equipment might be another example, but I would have to look to be sure. Rental real estate is another biggie, as are natural resource depletion allowances (coal, oil, timber).

Tax lives for computer equipment started out the same as office equipment e.g., adding machines. Not an unreasonable place to start. I think the tax life has been knocked down to five years, and may now be headed to three years, which is probably pretty close to economic life.

Ted:
Did I understand that you are AKA Derek? I thought you were gone after the April Fools joke. Good to see you back.

[DanS]

It's normally pretty generous. But even with lifespan reductions, the depreciation schedules are generous as well, further distorting the value of these investments.

Edit: Another crosspost with AS.

[Dinner]

So what do you folks think about the idea of lowering payroll taxes instead of Dividend taxes?

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't think they should focus the tax so much on the rich, they should try to mainly cut taxes for the poor and middle class.

[Ted Striker]

I agree BD.

Adam Smith,

Yes that's correct. I actually came back about 8 months after the April Fool's joke for a few months. Then I disappeared for about a year beginning Jan 2002, now I'm back.

April Fool's joke was well excecuted and sent me off in a 5-Year-Old crybaby fit.

It's nice to see you.


Oerdin,

I'd like to see them both done.

[monolith94]

As a college student, I'd like to see tax breaks on families putting kids through college. Harumph!

[Dinner]

$600billion sounds like alot but realize that it's spread out over 10 years and that $60billion a year has to have an affect on an economy which is nearing $11trillion per year. It's like trying to move the Titanic with just one guy pulling on a rope.

Bush's proposal will put more money into the economy. There is no denying that, but, it's not just about putting more money into the economy it is also about encouraging the money that is there to be used in ways which will more efficiently generate growth.

Will this money be spent, thus maximizing it's effect on the economy by stimulating service providers & manfacturers, or will it be saved, thus have less of an impact upon the economy? All the reports I've ever heard point that the money doesn't trickle down very efficiently and it's better to skip the middle man and put the cash in the hands of people who will actually circulate it.

[monolith94]

Huey Long for prez!

[Ted Striker]

I'd have to say I agree with you. You made a point earlier that many of the ultra-rich just take the extra cash and wrap it up into things that generate more cash.

I'd also like to speculate and say that some of that money gets tossed into real estate, where it builds up equity or more revenue for the bank (another wealthy entity).

Now the argument can also be made that this wealth in turn allows the banks to be able to loan out more money to corporations which in turn can expand and hire more people. But often times what I've seen is that the banks are just more likely to make bad loans, which at the front of an expansion, lead to more jobs, business growth, etc, but again leads to a wobblier economy that stalls out on the tail end.

I think getting things to the "end user" makes things alot smoother.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by monolith94
Huey Long for prez!

How about his boy, Gerald L.K. Smith ? Dubbed as the best American speaker ever. I saw this guy for the first time and MAN he could whip people up into a frenzy!

"These great phenomenal assemblies, whether they be headed by Dr. Francis E. Townsend, Gerald Smith, or Father Charles E. Coughlin, represent the unmistable edict that is being issued to the corrupt, seething politicians of America that the baby-having, stump-grumping, sod-busting, go-to-meeting, god-fearing American people are about to take over the United States Government of America!"

*crowd goes into a frenzy*

You guys should watch the "grilled millionaire," speech by FDR, pretty interesting parallel to this debate:

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/index.html#1930

[DanS]

I don't think any further stimulus is needed, and I think short-term cuts are really a waste of money. We should have healthy growth next year without it. The dividend stuff is all long-term tweaking, and is worthwhile.

[monolith94]

"How about his boy, Gerald L.K. Smith ? Dubbed as the best American speaker ever."
You've OBVIOUSLY never heard me speak!

[Ted Striker]

Dammmmmnnnnnnnnn!!!!

[Ned]

My problem with Democrats demagoguing this issue is that they are actually playing class warfare politics. They have no interest in what is best for the economy. They simply want to keep taxes on middle to upper income brackets high. They preach envy. They tell you that economics is all about the rich stealing from the poor and that they, the Democrats, will fix that. The Democrats in the US are Marxists.

Adam Smith and others have made some very good points on the flaws of Bush's proposals. He made these points by arguing the economics of the proposals. If only, just once in my lifetime, a Democrat politician would make principled arguments when taxes are involved, I would be amazed.

I think it is right and proper for Republicans to hammer the Democrats for being the socialists they are. They are not interested in a growing economy. They are interested in equality of results. Their methods, if ever allowed free reign, would impoverish the United States.