http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/politics/05FAMI-POL.html

April 5, 2001

Gore Voter Sees Value in Bush's Tax Proposal

By DAVID FIRESTONE

	Alan S. Weiner for The New York Times Barney Taylor Jr., with his wife, LaMechee, and their son, Kahlil, at their apartment in Stockbridge, Ga. Mr. Taylor, whose software company has fallen on hard times, sees hope in the president's tax cut, but his wife does not believe it will have much of an impact.
			Treasury's Analysis of Bush Tax Plan   What the Tax Cuts Mean for Different Families
			Bush Tax Cut Plan Survives First Senate Test (April 4, 2001) • Text of Bush's Budget Proposal  (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) Expanded Coverage • Special Section: Your Taxes • In Depth: Budget • Politics: Congress • Politics: White House This is the first article in a series about how taxpayers at varying income levels would be affected by the Bush tax cut proposal. Future installments will focus on a Montana secretary, a Texas doctor and a carpenter in Maine.
	Alan S. Weiner for The New York Times Barney Taylor Jr. said a tax cut could jump-start the economy.

TLANTA, April 4 — There's not much Republican in Barney Taylor Jr., but what little there is has been activated by the prospect of a large federal tax cut.

Mr. Taylor voted for Al Gore and has a tendency to distress his accountant by using profits for a program to distribute computers to low-income families. But as the owner of a software company that has suffered reversals as the economy has declined, he thinks President Bush may have a point in trying to reduce tax rates.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Answers

...AND THE ARTICLE.... KEEPS GETTING EVEN MORE ***EDUCATIONAL***....

"If everybody takes their tax cut and spends it at Wal-Mart or Chrysler — well, those guys are our customers," he said ruefully a few days ago, amazed to hear himself spout supply-side economics. "And then maybe our customers would start up the orders they canceled, and we'd get some benefit from it. I mean, our tax cut wouldn't be that big, but it does bring out the Republican in me."

It has taken Mr. Taylor a decade to reach that notion, as he bounced upon the unforgiving bronco of the technology industry through the 1990's. But unlike many who have sold multiple companies, changed jobs on a whim or soured on the economy's prospects, he has refused to abandon the trip.

At the decade's peak, just two or three years ago, he ran a software company that wrote programs for several Fortune 500 corporations. He employed 15 people and took home about $100,000 a year. Mr. Taylor, 32, tasted the promise of the country's economic expansion, and believed that computers could similarly help other young African- Americans break out of dead-end lives near the poverty line.

He still believes this, even though the last two years have not been kind. Many of his clients are spending less, and his company, Thirteen Scribes Inc., is down to its four principals. He moved out of a house in Stone Mountain, an Atlanta suburb, to an apartment in the less-expensive suburb of Stockbridge, where he and his wife, LaMechee, are rearing their 6-month-old son, Kahlil, on less than half of what Mr. Taylor used to make.

But although he believes that minority companies like his face particular disadvantages — the perennial struggle to raise venture capital, for one — Mr. Taylor is convinced there is virtue in making sacrifices to stay afloat and holding on to what remains of the digital economy.

"The companies that were here before, and that make it through the tough times, they're the ones that are going to last," he said. "You look at all the companies with better mousetraps that blew through their cash in a year — that doesn't take any skill. What matters is holding steady at moments like this with the talent that you have, not giving up, and waiting it out until things turn around."

And, he added, if a tax cut will help to turn things around, he will take it.

The Taylors would pay $1,000 less in annual federal taxes under the administration's proposal, as calculated by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche based on the latest legislation moving through Congress.

Because Ms. Taylor is in school studying to be a massage therapist, the family would not receive the full benefit of Mr. Bush's proposed cut in the "marriage penalty," which primarily helps couples with roughly equal incomes. Their 22 percent tax cut would come through the reduction in rates and the doubling of the child tax credit.

While they would be happy to save that much money, Ms. Taylor — who tends to be a bit more economically pessimistic than her husband — said the impact would be marginal.

"We'd probably just spend it paying off bills we've already got," she said. "I don't really think it would change our standard of living."

She said she already felt pinched by rising energy costs and the expenses of a new infant. "Have you noticed how the food companies are putting less in the same size boxes and charging the same?" she asked.

In recent months, the Taylors have become unexpectedly absorbed in the economy's swoops and dives, its celebrities and statistics. Mr. Taylor has been following the Nasdaq index and the tax-cut debate, hoping for the slightest sign of a market revival for his company's suite of networking and security programs, along with customized software. Mrs. Taylor has been watching the financial news and even following the credit markets.

"Not so long ago, I didn't even know who Alan Greenspan was, but I knew he was very important," she said. "Now I watch to see what he does with interest rates, and what the president does.

"I guess for all those years we didn't realize we had such a good economy," she added. "When you're growing up right in the middle of it, it just seems natural until it ends."

Ms. Taylor, 26, grew up in Athens, Ga., the daughter of a utility worker who was frequently laid off and rehired. During periods without work, the family frequently faced financial difficulty, and often went without health insurance.

Mr. Taylor's family, in Portsmouth, Va., was somewhat better off. Both his parents worked at the shipyard there, and moved their way up from a duplex apartment to a trailer home to their own home on the middle-class side of town. His father bought him a Radio Shack computer when he was 13, and he was hooked, immediately beginning a lifelong fascination with programming that was encouraged in high school computer labs.

("I wish I had paid attention to computers when I was in high school," his wife interjected.)

While in college at Norfolk State University, Mr. Taylor was already making about $10,000 a year on the side doing computer consulting for local small businesses. Later, when he was doing graduate work at the College of William and Mary, NASA hired him to write software for its flight and satellite computer systems.

He spent five years at NASA's offices in the Washington suburbs, earning enough money to impress his father, who eventually switched from electrician to becoming a programmer himself at the shipyard.

In 1993, he quit to begin his own software company, joined by two other former NASA programmers. He moved the company to Atlanta, joining the region's economic boom, and quickly won contracts with BellSouth, Chrysler and several other large companies. But Thirteen Scribes — a name he said was based on the African belief that 13 is a perfect number — had to struggle to survive.

"We could never get past the resistance in the investment community to get behind minority technology firms," he said. "I mean, we had NASA scientists and doctorate degrees and a great suite of products, but they wouldn't listen to us.

"So there were good times," he said, "and then there were times when we really had to lean on each other and pass groceries around. But we had a real sense that we needed to stay together for the community."

In 1996, the company spun off a division called Computers in the 'Hood, selling low-cost, low-profit personal computers to working-class Atlanta families, and providing free computer training.

The program distributed about 350 computers over four years, at a significant cost to the profits of Thirteen Scribes, but Mr. Taylor said it helped address the vast disparity in computer ownership between black and white families.

Although he voted for Mr. Gore, disagreeing with Mr. Bush's support for capital punishment, among other reasons, Mr. Taylor said the computer project convinced him that African-Americans should not rely on government programs to solve their problems.

More technology companies should provide training in the information industry, he said, and more black families should let children spend as much time at a computer as they now do in front of a television set.

"I'm not saying I want Bush to start cutting back on government programs to pay for the tax cut," he said. "But if the tax cut allows more companies to create more jobs for people like me, that might be worth rolling the dice for."

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

WOW! A real black guy who seemingly "supports" the Give-Away to the Rich.

How long did they have to dig to find this guy?

BTW, the last figures I saw stated that the average tax cut to the non-wealthy will be in the neighborhood of $12/month. Um, should I spend that all in one place? Should I invest it wisely in a Microsoft? Can one open a brokerage account with $12/month? I'm sure I can get alot for that at Wal-Mart, but do you think Chrysler would accept that as a down payment on a Sebring convertible?

ROTFLMAO..... You kill me, Charlie.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

DUH....and I mean

BIG DUH

That be THE.......and I mean THE... PAPER OF RECORD FOR YOUR SIDE.....THE NEW YORK TIMES (one of the world's truly great fishwrappers).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Ah, yet another "misinformation campaign" by The Mighty Right.

FYI, The New York Times is NOT the "paper of record for [MY] side".

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs (or so Flint always tells me anyway).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Flint Who?

The NY Times is the Voice of the Moderate Liberals that dominate the Democratic Party and try to influence the liberals in the Republican Party (all 23 of them).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Small steps Patricia. The Sebring will definately have to wait. Still you're sounding like what the cut is meant to do. Spend. Silly me would hope for some personal debt reduction out there. Just a little bit maybe?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

That's just it, Carlos. According to our fearless leader, that's EXACTLY what the "cut" is supposed to do -- trigger SPENDING.

WTF am I supposed to spend $12/month on?

If he had a functioning brain cell left, he'd do the "rebate" thing (but more than the $300 proposed by Lieberman). THAT would jar spending, whether it be paying down personal debt, large appliances, etc. The wealthy aren't going to SPEND their tax cut for crying out loud.

Then maybe what's left of the $1.6 trillion (which would be more than two-thirds of it) could be used to pay down the NATIONAL DEBT. Maybe then a phantom surplus might become an ACTUAL surplus.

What a concept.

Come on, guys, this isn't rocket science.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Article: "If everybody takes their tax cut and spends it at Wal-Mart or Chrysler — well, those guys are our customers," he said ruefully a few days ago, amazed to hear himself spout supply-side economics."

Except this is old-fashioned demand-side economics. The supply-side theory was that if you gave the bulk of the tax cut to the rich, they would invest it, not "spend it at Wal-Mart", and that this investment in newer and more efficient capacity would be sufficient to stimulate demand. Just how this would happen was never very clear.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Real Tax reform would mean raising the tax rate across the board and paying off the National Debt. Then the taxes could be cut because of the savings on the interest. The price would be a Depression and probably the bankruptcy of several countries and many lending institutions. In addition, sending more money to D.C. is NEVER a good practice because along the way, the Pork Barrel Bouffet begins (thank you future President Ainsely Hayes of West Wing). The Elected Trough Fillers take theirs and somehow little goes to pay off the Debt. And you don't really want to pay it off anyway because Widows and Pensioners sort of like U.S. Bonds.

Even if YOU keep your 12 dollars under your mattress most people won't. St. Joe was going to give you a whopping $25 in 12 payments at once to hide. It is easy to see why you are unhappy with the GOP $12. But now we know your price... $13/month.... RIGHT? LOLOLOLOL

WHAT DID YOU WANT $500, 1,000 or MORE??? Even Senator Saint from Ct. wanted a onetime check of $300 for every human who filed a tax return last year (sorry tax protestors, no soup for you).

SO...excuse me...but $12 per month or $144 /yr. TIMES: 100 MILLION PEOPLE is a LOT OF MONEY. And elementary economics states that depending on the interest rates and some other variables, every dollar spent ONCE is MULTIPLIED over 5 times.

12 X 100 MM X 5 ---> 6 BILLION /month X 12 -->72 Billion. NOT QUITE "CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING" but a nice bit of pump priming.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Hmmm, I seemed to have touched a nerve. LOL.

One thing you are (most conveniently) overlooking is this:

Junior's "rationale" for the tax cut is to jump-start the economy ***NOW***.

Now, wouldn't a rebate work a bit better than something you either (a) can't buy a day's worth of groceries with; or, (b) something you ain't gonna see for up to ten years?

Oh, but I forgot; "common sense" ISN'T. And the "rationale" is a smokescreen; he has his OWN "debts" to pay, doesn't he? (wink, wink)

(And, BTW, "St. Joe" didn't come up with that "rebate" idea; someone else did but it was considerably more.)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

[Oh, but I forgot; "common sense" ISN'T.]

Apparently not...

[Now, wouldn't a rebate work a bit better than something you either (a) can't buy a day's worth of groceries with; or, (b) something you ain't gonna see for up to ten years?]

Now here I'm confused. WHY is it better to collect taxes from you and then give them back, than not to collect them in the first place? It seems the first approach would be more expensive, because we need to pay bureaucrats to collect it, and account for it, and return it, and make sure nobody cheats, ALL of which is saved if we just don't collect it.

Another question is, HOW is it possible to return BIG rebates from our taxes (which apparently we can afford), but NOT possible to reduce taxes by very much at all? (Less than a day's worth of groceries, and STILL irresponsible?)

And the (unspoken) answer to both questions, I suppose, is that the rebates could be large because they would ONLY be sent to those who *deserve* them. And who are those deserving people? Well, purely by coincidence you understand, they tend to be mostly democratic voters. What a surprise!

But this is fundamental, the difference between trying to reduce the size of government altogether, and trying to do social engineering to benefit the democratic voter class. The problem with a tax cut is, it's not "properly" targeted toward the "right" people, see? And who gets to define proper and right? Trust us, we know better than you what to do with your money.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

See, Flint? That's what happens when you *read too much into* what I wrote.

No, dear one, the rebate goes to ALL TAXPAYERS. Period. One-shot deal. One-Price-Fits-All. Costs about one-third what the resident genius is proposing (less when you factor in the ACTUAL amount of the proposed tax cut which comes to well over $2 billion).

Then next year, you work on reducing rates.

And people get it NOW. THIS YEAR. Not in ten years. BINGO! Economy gets "jump-started" because the people who do the bulk of the spending will have money to spend.

What a concept.

All this is, of course, based on Junior's claim that it's to "jump-start the economy".

Funny how you left that part out.....

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Patricia:

I still don't understand how everyone getting $300 costs less than everyone getting $12. Magic?

I think what you omit is that people will all get to keep different amounts of a tax cut depending (mostly) on how much they PAY in taxes. And by assumption, those who pay a lot (and would therefore get the largest cut in absolute dollars) will *bury this money in a sock*, and the economy will feel nothing. This is the Official Dogma of the Left.

But they don't. Instead, they invest it. This bolsters the economy, causes more jobs to be created, makes stockholders (half of us) feel richer, boosts spending, etc. But the problem is, these effects are *indirect*, and the Official Dogma of the Left says that indirect effects DO NOT HAPPEN.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

So I'm spouting the "Official Dogma of the Left" and you're spouting the "Official Dogma of the Right".

Problem is, the last time we tried the "Official Dogma of the Right", it didn't work either (remember Reaganomics? trickle-down?)

The point I'm trying to make (which seems to have eluded you) is that Junior is willing to spend over $2 trillion of PHANTOM SURPLUSES in the form of a tax cut.

You're saying that the idea I set forth has no "financial backing", but you don't seem to want to address Junior's plan that ALSO has no "financial backing".

The other thing you consistently overlook is this bit about the rich paying MORE in taxes. Uh huh. I'd like to live in YOUR neck of the woods. Thing is, when you have that much income, you have that many more opportunities to SHELTER it. And SHELTER it they do.

In so many cases they actually pay LESS than the rest of us common folk.

Don't know why you keep overlooking that.

Make no mistake, I'd love to join their ranks someday. No bitterness, but a bunch of envy at times. It comes down to the fact that I honestly believe if you MAKE MORE you should PAY MORE.

Doesn't ever "even the score", but I don't want to "even the score". Kind of takes the fun out of working towards a goal.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Patricia:

Well, you didn't explain how a $12 tax cut is more than a $300 rebate, but let's let that go for now. I understand.

However, your tax shelter argument ought to cause red flags to pop up even in YOUR worldview. Out of one side of your mouth, you complain because Bush's tax cut benefits the very rich to the point where a very small percentage (the very rich) enjoy the vast bulk of the cut. But out of the other side of your mouth, you complain that the very rich DO NOT PAY taxes!

Now, it should occur even to you that people who do not pay much in taxes, cannot enjoy much of a cut, there being nothing there to cut. So how can you say BOTH that they shelter their money from taxes, yet will enjoy most of the $1.6 trillion. Surely you can see that something doesn't add up here. You are having your cake and eating it too. Can't you see this?

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Flint you truly are BLIND. Way too many hours in dos apparently.

INCOME, ring a bell? Say one is a PG&E criminal who just was handed a phat bonus check of say 50gs. How is this taxed?

Now at least try and figure others not as blind as yourself.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001