Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 7 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
I respond to Walter Longyear’s letter (the Rappahannock News, Oct. 4) in which he describes George W. Bush’s across-the-board tax cut and compares it with Gore's targeted tax cut. As he points out, in the Bush plan everyone would benefit, and he offers in support of this proposition an array of figures and percentages. I have two problems with his analysis:
First, he neglects to describe the overall effect of the Bush plan on the taxpaying public. Even though everyone would benefit, the wealthiest taxpayers, who are the least needful, would receive the lion's share of the tax reduction when measured in dollars rather than percentages. After all, 50 percent of $100 is significantly less than 10 percent of $10,000 or $100,000.
The disparity of wealth between rich and poor in this country is already obscene. The Bush plan would simply make it worse. Republican class warfare?
Second, Mr. Longyear fails to discuss the timing of the Bush plan and its effect on the economy. If the plan should be put into effect in 2001, while the surplus is still extant and the economy robust, it would most likely have an inflationary effect. Economists agree that tax cuts normally encourage consumer spending rather than saving. With inflation comes Alan Greenspan and an increase in interest rates, with a consequent decrease in investment, which could lead to recession and lower tax revenues. Since the present surplus would be exhausted by the Bush tax cut (which is three times the size of Gore’s), and since tax revenues would be down we would incur fur
94.1%