It costs a certain amount to run the government. It is absolutely FABULOUS that they want to lower/eliminate taxes on dividends. One problem: where does this budgetary shortfall get made up? Whose taxes have to increase to make up for this "gift"? Or will it not be made up and instead simply increase the deficit? That doesn't sound too wise to me.-hack
"Whose taxes have to increase to make up for this "gift"? Or will it not be made up and instead simply increase the deficit? That doesn't sound too wise to me."Therein lies the rub. That's the difference between the Republican party, and old-line conservatism. The old-line conservative would not think of doing a tax cut without a commensurate drop in gov't spending. Politically, though, that would be a non-starter. Because ending the taxation of stock dividends primarily benefits people who are rich enough to have lotsa stock assets to begin with. And the commensurate cuts would most likely come from social programs that affect the poorer classes of people.Although, the true old-line conservative (especially if he has brass balls) would say, "Well, the he!@#@!ll with it, 'cause we're cutting things that the Constitution doesnt allow the federal gov't to do in the first place!!!"rFWhose taxable income would be reduced by ~ $400 by the way. <- SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!!!Hey, four hundred bux is four hundred bux, man!!!!
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |