There's this stuff that happened... 9/11? you know? they started this whole new cabinet for national security, and a whole new system...
And that cost 5 trillion dollars over the long term? That's the amount of the shortfall over the long term. It's really shameless how Bush uses 9/11 for political cover.
On April 24, the President said in a speech in Canton, Ohio that the war and the recession caused those deficits._ He declared ?Now, you hear talk about deficits._ And I?m concerned about deficits._ I?m sure you are as well._ But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.?_
...
Yet the cost of war, though by no means trivial, is responsible for only a small share of the deficits we face._ The President?s tax cuts are a much more significant cause._ Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted and proposed tax cuts is more than three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism ? including the action in Afghanistan ? are counted as ?war costs,? along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq. Table 1 on page 2 provides the budget data that documents this fact._ Indeed, had it not been for tax cuts and other legislation enacted since 2001, the budget would still be in surplus.
Oh and I found another Bush economic lie in that link:
Quote:
The President declared that ?the minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession._ And that?s why I went to Congress for a tax package.?_ Yet this is not accurate; the recession dates from March 2001, and the President?s own economic advisers ? and the budget he presented to the nation in February 2001 that contained his tax cut ? projected continued robust economic growth.
Quote:
Oh yeah and there's that recession that happened from the democrats... when they were in office.
See my point 4 above.
Quote:
It will build jobs, and spending, oh and if you're so against it will you do know that 70% of the nation is behind it right?
1. I don't obtain my political views from polls. Do you?
2. I doubt your poll numbers anyway. Most I've seen say people are quite skeptical of Bush's tax plans.
Am I reading that right? That the highest quintile pays 64% of the total federal income tax? If so, thanks (seriously) for setting me straight. I'd always figured it was some kind of spin.
It is spin. That's federal income taxes only, even though ena called it "all taxes." Think about why they only use those numbers. It's because the federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes we have. If you really do include all taxes, especially sales taxes, things change quite a bit.
Furthermore, the wealth of the upper income has dramatically shot upwards over the past 20 years. They are doing absolutely great. They don't need Bush's help right now. If you look at the middle and lower classes, their incomes have remained stagnant during the same period. So why devise tax cuts that benefit those who need it the least? Why not have a flatter tax cut, one that would cut a flat dollar amount rather than a percentage amount?
And the problem is that, although we don't see it now, something has to give with Social Security in the future. Either the payroll tax would have to be increased, which would be a tax increase on the middle class, or benefits would have to be reduced (e.g., retirement age increased), which would be a benefit reduction for the middle class. So in the end, although it's not apparent now, Bush is proposing to reduce taxes on the wealthy and risk increasing taxes on the middle class.
It is spin. That's federal income taxes only, even though ena called it "all taxes." Think about why they only use those numbers. It's because the federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes we have. If you really do include all taxes, especially payroll (social security) and sales taxes, things change quite a bit. For example, the lower to middle classes pay a higher percent of their income in payroll taxes than the wealthy.
Furthermore, the wealth of the upper income has dramatically shot upwards over the past 20 years. They are doing absolutely great. They don't need Bush's help right now. If you look at the middle and lower classes, their incomes have remained stagnant during the same period. So why devise tax cuts that benefit those who need it the least? Why not have a flatter tax cut, one that would cut a flat dollar amount rather than a percentage amount?
And the problem is that, although we don't see it now, something has to give with Social Security in the future. Either the payroll tax would have to be increased, which would be a tax increase on the middle class, or benefits would have to be reduced (e.g., retirement age increased), which would be a benefit reduction for the middle class. So in the end, although it's not apparent now, Bush is proposing to reduce taxes on the wealthy and risk increasing taxes on the middle class.
BRussel: thanks. Check my previous post. My edit crossed your response in the mail.
It's these psycho-spending congress(wo)men that worry the hell out me.
Uh-huh. Bush's Republicans control Congress, and Bush has veto power over any budget they pass. This is one of the biggest-spending presidents we've ever had.
Did you ever stop and think you sound more like Newt Gingrich than you may know?
I will say President Clinton was much more moderate or even conservative than many realize. Sure Hillary wanted socialized health care. Sure there were a few other liberal ideas from Clinton but on balance what Clinton did in office was rather moderate. Yes he raised taxes and I am actually glad he did during the economic good times as if they were lower the bubble would have peaked and bust even faster.
President Clinton actually embraced the contract with america more than most admit in public.
Bush on the other hand is trying to get the economy back to a higher rate and stimulation is needed as they can tell you in Japan.
So now you have democrats sounding like Newt Gingrich republicans did in 1994.
Do the democrats out there realize what is going on?
Republicans have pretty much always been supply siders and I agree with supply side economics.
What has changed is that now with out even realizing it democrats have adopted a conservitive idea of balanced budgets which is mostly a Newt Gingrich idea.
One has to wonder how much further this trend will continue and what will result in future elections.
BRussel: thanks. Check my previous post. My edit crossed your response in the mail.
Yeah. But he is right that those numbers refer to their total share of all federal income taxes paid by each quintile. My problems:
1. It's not true to call those "all taxes."
2. The wealthy control a ridiculously high proportion of the wealth in the US. We have a much larger gap between rich and poor than other countries.
3. If you look at all wealth owned, not just income (the wealthy have lots of wealth that isn't income per se), and all taxes paid (not just federal income tax), the ratio of taxes paid to wealth goes in the other direction.
4. Shouldn't the wealthy pay a greater share of their income than the middle class? Shouldn't we assume that there is a basic amount that people need to live on, and after that, it's gravy? And shouldn't that gravy be what is taxed? That's why I favor a much higher personal deduction, say $50,000, and a tax only on amounts greater than that. I saw a report (I'll have to dig it up) that the personal exemption used to be many times higher than it is today. That's the kind of tax cut I'd favor.
What the economy needs quite frankly is sustainable growth and the means in place to provide for such a concept. In practice it is hard to govern. The fed in the 90's did not want to rain on the party. Why would it. We had low interest rates and then at the end of the final clinton term we saw Greenspan raise rates bit by bit as he knew things did finally play out. The natural bubble helped by a fed who did not want to rain on the party did materialize and we find ourselves back at ground zero as it were.
Democrat or Republican or any other party we need a system of governing the rate of GDP growth in the country to fit a concept of "sustainable" economic growth. When economic growth overheats and turns into economic speculation and supply outruns demand we find an economic hickup. Sort of like watching a streaming video over the internet it needs to remain at a constant rate or it will drop and then have to rebuffer. Recession is in a sense a rebuffering. A natural re-adjustment to the natural curve of supply and demand dynamics that the market can and will carry.
Sustainable economic growth is very very hard to govern as there are so many variables in play. In the 90's we saw so much capital chase so many ideas. Venture capital is hard to govern as people invest in what they please.
It really is something that needs addressing but how to address it is really hard to say.
Am I reading that right? That the highest quintile pays 64% of the total federal income tax? If so, thanks (seriously) for setting me straight. I'd always figured it was some kind of spin.
edit:
no wait. The heading says table two is "shares of family income and taxes paid by income category." That would still indicate that they're paying 64% of their income, no? Not 64% of the total taxes collected at teh federal level.
......looking at the one in the book, the top 20% has an effective rate of 33% and ends up giving 66% of all the income taxes collected. Their income accounts for 54% of all income in the country.
Did you ever stop and think you sound more like Newt Gingrich than you may know?
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
It is interesting how there is a difference between how the parties are viewed, and how there is a split in the Republican party over budgeting. I wonder what happened to all those Congressional Republicans who were such deficit hawks in the early 1990s.
But I'm not sure that I or Democrats in general have changed all that much. I personally really don't believe in a balanced budget amendment like Gingrich did and like trumptman does. I think we should have deficits in certain circumstances. Like now ferinstance. I don't think we should necessarily be budget absolutists. I just think we should be responsible.
More gov't spending does not equal budget deficits. I've always thought it odd that "tax and spend" was an insult. Isn't that exactly what we should do? I mean, if we're going to spend, we should tax, right? It is in the Democrats' interest to have a balanced budget because then there won't be as much pressure against spending.
I thought about writing a rebuttal to BRussells main post. The thread is just absurd though, so I'm not going to bother. The title isn't even descriptive for one thing....
---looked at some more stuff on TOTAL taxes and when all is said and done it is even MORE progressive than the Federal tax system, the effective rate for the bottom 20% is a NEGATIVE 30%. (as in their incomes are 30% higher than without the transfer payments.)
Also, SocSec was a panzi scheme borrowed from Germany---anyone who thinks there has even been a "lockbock" is out of their tree---it was, and will be(for a little while longer) a revenue tool.
I thought about writing a rebuttal to BRussells main post. The thread is just absurd though, so I'm not going to bother. The title isn't even descriptive for one thing....
But I'm not sure that I or Democrats in general have changed all that much. I personally really don't believe in a balanced budget amendment like Gingrich did and like trumptman does. I think we should have deficits in certain circumstances. Like now ferinstance. I don't think we should necessarily be budget absolutists. I just think we should be responsible.
More gov't spending does not equal budget deficits. I've always thought it odd that "tax and spend" was an insult. Isn't that exactly what we should do? I mean, if we're going to spend, we should tax, right? It is in the Democrats' interest to have a balanced budget because then there won't be as much pressure against spending.
I don't know. I've never been a fan of a balanced budget. I mean, how many individuals go through life with NO DEBT AT ALL? How many large businesses? Seriously. Most people owe money on something: credit cards, car payments, house payments, computer payments. I was pissed as hell when Clinton pushed that through. Sure, it got him what Reagan had always wanted. Sure, it took a Republican agenda item away from them. Sure, it made good State of the Union material.
As for taxes, I'm a bit of a fan of the VAT instead of the graduated tax scale we currently use.
Speaking of Clinton, has anyone else seen the Frontline special on "The Clinton Years"? I'm re-watching it now (at 2:30 am) for the first time in months.
....so the top 60% pay, that's right math fans, 95% of all taxes.
And your Ranger Rick Quick Fact of the day:
-the top 1% of income earners (those making $1 million or more) pay 23.1% of all taxes although they only make 16% of all income.
VERY FAIR
Enough with the retread 1920s rhetoric.
Sure, that's all fine and dandy and should be fixed...however...
What is the purpose of the current tax cut? If it is meant to stimulate the economy, correcting the current disparity WILL NOT WORK. Those that will benefit the most from this economic stimuls tax cut already have the money to buy whatever the hell they want and are already stimulating the economy. IF THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CUT IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, GIVE THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES THE MONEY FROM THIS TAX CUT SO THE MASSES CAN STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
Sure, that's all fine and dandy and should be fixed...however...
What is the purpose of the current tax cut? If it is meant to stimulate the economy, correcting the current disparity WILL NOT WORK. Those that will benefit the most from this economic stimuls tax cut already have the money to buy whatever the hell they want and are already stimulating the economy. IF THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CUT IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, GIVE THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES THE MONEY FROM THIS TAX CUT SO THE MASSES CAN STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
GDP growth doesn't come from stimulating consumption. It comes from investment. We don?t need a tax cut to stimulate the economy. We're not in recession. We need a tax cut that fosters growth. We're currently bumping along at GDP expansion of about 2%. That's too low. Cutting marginal rates and eliminating taxes on dividends are very good ways to encourage investment.
GDP growth doesn't come from stimulating consumption. It comes from investment. We don?t need a tax cut to stimulate the economy. We're not in recession. We need a tax cut that fosters growth. We're currently bumping along at GDP expansion of about 2%. That's too low. Cutting marginal rates and eliminating taxes on dividends are very good ways to encourage investment.
The problem is you cannot be sure that the rich use the money for domestic investments. Especially not if there isn´t given more money to/taken less money away from the-not-so-rich. The more poor the people given money are the more likely it is that its used for products produced domestically. Very roughly said: Poor people buy american made milk and bread and rich people buy swedish Volvos. When consumption on domestical produced products goes up investments are diverted toward the home marked.
One thing is even better: Government spendings especially in infrastructure. But I know thats an ideologic no-no.
Comments
Originally posted by kraig911
There's this stuff that happened... 9/11? you know? they started this whole new cabinet for national security, and a whole new system...
And that cost 5 trillion dollars over the long term? That's the amount of the shortfall over the long term. It's really shameless how Bush uses 9/11 for political cover.
See this link.
On April 24, the President said in a speech in Canton, Ohio that the war and the recession caused those deficits._ He declared ?Now, you hear talk about deficits._ And I?m concerned about deficits._ I?m sure you are as well._ But this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.?_
...
Yet the cost of war, though by no means trivial, is responsible for only a small share of the deficits we face._ The President?s tax cuts are a much more significant cause._ Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted and proposed tax cuts is more than three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism ? including the action in Afghanistan ? are counted as ?war costs,? along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq. Table 1 on page 2 provides the budget data that documents this fact._ Indeed, had it not been for tax cuts and other legislation enacted since 2001, the budget would still be in surplus.
Oh and I found another Bush economic lie in that link:
The President declared that ?the minute I got sworn in, we were in a recession._ And that?s why I went to Congress for a tax package.?_ Yet this is not accurate; the recession dates from March 2001, and the President?s own economic advisers ? and the budget he presented to the nation in February 2001 that contained his tax cut ? projected continued robust economic growth.
Oh yeah and there's that recession that happened from the democrats... when they were in office.
See my point 4 above.
It will build jobs, and spending, oh and if you're so against it will you do know that 70% of the nation is behind it right?
1. I don't obtain my political views from polls. Do you?
2. I doubt your poll numbers anyway. Most I've seen say people are quite skeptical of Bush's tax plans.
Originally posted by midwinter
Am I reading that right? That the highest quintile pays 64% of the total federal income tax? If so, thanks (seriously) for setting me straight. I'd always figured it was some kind of spin.
It is spin. That's federal income taxes only, even though ena called it "all taxes." Think about why they only use those numbers. It's because the federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes we have. If you really do include all taxes, especially sales taxes, things change quite a bit.
Furthermore, the wealth of the upper income has dramatically shot upwards over the past 20 years. They are doing absolutely great. They don't need Bush's help right now. If you look at the middle and lower classes, their incomes have remained stagnant during the same period. So why devise tax cuts that benefit those who need it the least? Why not have a flatter tax cut, one that would cut a flat dollar amount rather than a percentage amount?
And the problem is that, although we don't see it now, something has to give with Social Security in the future. Either the payroll tax would have to be increased, which would be a tax increase on the middle class, or benefits would have to be reduced (e.g., retirement age increased), which would be a benefit reduction for the middle class. So in the end, although it's not apparent now, Bush is proposing to reduce taxes on the wealthy and risk increasing taxes on the middle class.
Originally posted by BRussell
It is spin. That's federal income taxes only, even though ena called it "all taxes." Think about why they only use those numbers. It's because the federal income tax is one of the most progressive taxes we have. If you really do include all taxes, especially payroll (social security) and sales taxes, things change quite a bit. For example, the lower to middle classes pay a higher percent of their income in payroll taxes than the wealthy.
Furthermore, the wealth of the upper income has dramatically shot upwards over the past 20 years. They are doing absolutely great. They don't need Bush's help right now. If you look at the middle and lower classes, their incomes have remained stagnant during the same period. So why devise tax cuts that benefit those who need it the least? Why not have a flatter tax cut, one that would cut a flat dollar amount rather than a percentage amount?
And the problem is that, although we don't see it now, something has to give with Social Security in the future. Either the payroll tax would have to be increased, which would be a tax increase on the middle class, or benefits would have to be reduced (e.g., retirement age increased), which would be a benefit reduction for the middle class. So in the end, although it's not apparent now, Bush is proposing to reduce taxes on the wealthy and risk increasing taxes on the middle class.
BRussel: thanks. Check my previous post. My edit crossed your response in the mail.
Originally posted by ena
The tax cut will basically work.
It's these psycho-spending congress(wo)men that worry the hell out me.
Uh-huh. Bush's Republicans control Congress, and Bush has veto power over any budget they pass. This is one of the biggest-spending presidents we've ever had.
Did you ever stop and think you sound more like Newt Gingrich than you may know?
I will say President Clinton was much more moderate or even conservative than many realize. Sure Hillary wanted socialized health care. Sure there were a few other liberal ideas from Clinton but on balance what Clinton did in office was rather moderate. Yes he raised taxes and I am actually glad he did during the economic good times as if they were lower the bubble would have peaked and bust even faster.
President Clinton actually embraced the contract with america more than most admit in public.
Bush on the other hand is trying to get the economy back to a higher rate and stimulation is needed as they can tell you in Japan.
So now you have democrats sounding like Newt Gingrich republicans did in 1994.
Do the democrats out there realize what is going on?
Republicans have pretty much always been supply siders and I agree with supply side economics.
What has changed is that now with out even realizing it democrats have adopted a conservitive idea of balanced budgets which is mostly a Newt Gingrich idea.
One has to wonder how much further this trend will continue and what will result in future elections.
Fellowship
Originally posted by midwinter
BRussel: thanks. Check my previous post. My edit crossed your response in the mail.
Yeah. But he is right that those numbers refer to their total share of all federal income taxes paid by each quintile. My problems:
1. It's not true to call those "all taxes."
2. The wealthy control a ridiculously high proportion of the wealth in the US. We have a much larger gap between rich and poor than other countries.
3. If you look at all wealth owned, not just income (the wealthy have lots of wealth that isn't income per se), and all taxes paid (not just federal income tax), the ratio of taxes paid to wealth goes in the other direction.
4. Shouldn't the wealthy pay a greater share of their income than the middle class? Shouldn't we assume that there is a basic amount that people need to live on, and after that, it's gravy? And shouldn't that gravy be what is taxed? That's why I favor a much higher personal deduction, say $50,000, and a tax only on amounts greater than that. I saw a report (I'll have to dig it up) that the personal exemption used to be many times higher than it is today. That's the kind of tax cut I'd favor.
Democrat or Republican or any other party we need a system of governing the rate of GDP growth in the country to fit a concept of "sustainable" economic growth. When economic growth overheats and turns into economic speculation and supply outruns demand we find an economic hickup. Sort of like watching a streaming video over the internet it needs to remain at a constant rate or it will drop and then have to rebuffer. Recession is in a sense a rebuffering. A natural re-adjustment to the natural curve of supply and demand dynamics that the market can and will carry.
Sustainable economic growth is very very hard to govern as there are so many variables in play. In the 90's we saw so much capital chase so many ideas. Venture capital is hard to govern as people invest in what they please.
It really is something that needs addressing but how to address it is really hard to say.
Fellowship
Originally posted by midwinter
Am I reading that right? That the highest quintile pays 64% of the total federal income tax? If so, thanks (seriously) for setting me straight. I'd always figured it was some kind of spin.
edit:
no wait. The heading says table two is "shares of family income and taxes paid by income category." That would still indicate that they're paying 64% of their income, no? Not 64% of the total taxes collected at teh federal level.
......looking at the one in the book, the top 20% has an effective rate of 33% and ends up giving 66% of all the income taxes collected. Their income accounts for 54% of all income in the country.
Originally posted by BRussell
It is spin. That's federal income taxes only, even though ena called it "all taxes."
....that can't be spin--what other significant taxes are left? State income taxes and consumption taxes (which would be dead even anyway)?
Besides that, this thread is about a Federal Income Tax cut.
I'll go look it up but I believe the Lion's share of Federal Income comes from the Income Tax.
more later
Federal Income Tax--50%
"Social Insurance Taxes"--35%
(these are the taxes you don't see, taxes on wages, paid by the employer that are "earmarked" for Social Security and Medicare)
Corporate Taxes--8%
"Other"--8%
(excise taxes: gas, beer, cigarettes, bla, bla, bla)
Social Security 23% of spending
Defense 17%
Income Security 14% (TANF, welfare)
Interest 11%
Medicare 12%
Health 9%
Other 14%
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
BRussell Greetings,
Did you ever stop and think you sound more like Newt Gingrich than you may know?
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
It is interesting how there is a difference between how the parties are viewed, and how there is a split in the Republican party over budgeting. I wonder what happened to all those Congressional Republicans who were such deficit hawks in the early 1990s.
But I'm not sure that I or Democrats in general have changed all that much. I personally really don't believe in a balanced budget amendment like Gingrich did and like trumptman does. I think we should have deficits in certain circumstances. Like now ferinstance. I don't think we should necessarily be budget absolutists. I just think we should be responsible.
More gov't spending does not equal budget deficits. I've always thought it odd that "tax and spend" was an insult. Isn't that exactly what we should do? I mean, if we're going to spend, we should tax, right? It is in the Democrats' interest to have a balanced budget because then there won't be as much pressure against spending.
Have fun...
Also, SocSec was a panzi scheme borrowed from Germany---anyone who thinks there has even been a "lockbock" is out of their tree---it was, and will be(for a little while longer) a revenue tool.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I thought about writing a rebuttal to BRussells main post. The thread is just absurd though, so I'm not going to bother. The title isn't even descriptive for one thing....
Have fun...
Yeah I know, it's overwhelmingly persuasive.
Originally posted by BRussell
But I'm not sure that I or Democrats in general have changed all that much. I personally really don't believe in a balanced budget amendment like Gingrich did and like trumptman does. I think we should have deficits in certain circumstances. Like now ferinstance. I don't think we should necessarily be budget absolutists. I just think we should be responsible.
More gov't spending does not equal budget deficits. I've always thought it odd that "tax and spend" was an insult. Isn't that exactly what we should do? I mean, if we're going to spend, we should tax, right? It is in the Democrats' interest to have a balanced budget because then there won't be as much pressure against spending.
I don't know. I've never been a fan of a balanced budget. I mean, how many individuals go through life with NO DEBT AT ALL? How many large businesses? Seriously. Most people owe money on something: credit cards, car payments, house payments, computer payments. I was pissed as hell when Clinton pushed that through. Sure, it got him what Reagan had always wanted. Sure, it took a Republican agenda item away from them. Sure, it made good State of the Union material.
As for taxes, I'm a bit of a fan of the VAT instead of the graduated tax scale we currently use.
Speaking of Clinton, has anyone else seen the Frontline special on "The Clinton Years"? I'm re-watching it now (at 2:30 am) for the first time in months.
Originally posted by ena
....from those wankers at the C.B.O.
(what the hell do they know, anyway?)
of all taxes:
top 20% pay 66%
next 20% pay 18%
the next 20% pay 11%
....so the top 60% pay, that's right math fans, 95% of all taxes.
And your Ranger Rick Quick Fact of the day:
-the top 1% of income earners (those making $1 million or more) pay 23.1% of all taxes although they only make 16% of all income.
VERY FAIR
Enough with the retread 1920s rhetoric.
Sure, that's all fine and dandy and should be fixed...however...
What is the purpose of the current tax cut? If it is meant to stimulate the economy, correcting the current disparity WILL NOT WORK. Those that will benefit the most from this economic stimuls tax cut already have the money to buy whatever the hell they want and are already stimulating the economy. IF THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CUT IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, GIVE THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES THE MONEY FROM THIS TAX CUT SO THE MASSES CAN STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
Originally posted by BR
Sure, that's all fine and dandy and should be fixed...however...
What is the purpose of the current tax cut? If it is meant to stimulate the economy, correcting the current disparity WILL NOT WORK. Those that will benefit the most from this economic stimuls tax cut already have the money to buy whatever the hell they want and are already stimulating the economy. IF THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE TAX CUT IS TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, GIVE THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES THE MONEY FROM THIS TAX CUT SO THE MASSES CAN STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
GDP growth doesn't come from stimulating consumption. It comes from investment. We don?t need a tax cut to stimulate the economy. We're not in recession. We need a tax cut that fosters growth. We're currently bumping along at GDP expansion of about 2%. That's too low. Cutting marginal rates and eliminating taxes on dividends are very good ways to encourage investment.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
GDP growth doesn't come from stimulating consumption. It comes from investment. We don?t need a tax cut to stimulate the economy. We're not in recession. We need a tax cut that fosters growth. We're currently bumping along at GDP expansion of about 2%. That's too low. Cutting marginal rates and eliminating taxes on dividends are very good ways to encourage investment.
The problem is you cannot be sure that the rich use the money for domestic investments. Especially not if there isn´t given more money to/taken less money away from the-not-so-rich. The more poor the people given money are the more likely it is that its used for products produced domestically. Very roughly said: Poor people buy american made milk and bread and rich people buy swedish Volvos. When consumption on domestical produced products goes up investments are diverted toward the home marked.
One thing is even better: Government spendings especially in infrastructure. But I know thats an ideologic no-no.