The above is an article about Alan Greenspan's recent testimony before a joint session of Congress. He does not recommend extending the tax cuts beyond 2011.
So who is right? Alan Greenspan or President Bush?
There's no such thing as "permenant" in US tax laws.
Unless you count the government's will tax us. That's pretty permenant.
I think the reason why AG said that Bush's tax adjustments have no real impact is because they didn't. Bush thought that if lower income bracket people received a refund on a previous tax year, a lump-sum payment, they would go out and spend it on "stuff". The reality was that most people took their refunds and paid bills on goods already purchased.
Greenspan's warning not to pass any laws that will help our economic downturn may have been directed at a more broad concern that Congress will "react" to our bad-news economy. He says it ain't that bad, no reaction necessary.
I think he's right.
Posts: 3632 | Location: Washington, US | Registered: 06-03-02
The real meat of the Bush tax cuts will not take effect until the 6th year. So what effect on the economy we see will probably be minimal. When these tax cuts do kick in, the economy will be stimulated. It would be foolish not to extend the tax cuts beyond 2011. If anything the tax cuts should be made permanent.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
