People provide their own incentives. They don't need government ot do it for them. Government does not control the economy, and that is just the way it is.
And whoever is in the CIC seat when the economy goes south gets the blame by those who don't understand how economics work and are partisan hacks.
And whoever is in the CIC seat when the economy goes south gets the blame by those who don't understand how economics work and are partisan hacks.
You really don't even know how your mind works. Do you spend more money when you have less take home pay? Govt. sets tax policy and personal income growth or decline is a factor in economic performance.
I've barely notied any changes in taxes, so my spending hasn't been effected at all. And there is good information showing the wealthy don't change their habits either way as it concerns taxes. So, I'm looking for something more fact based than your supposing.
Probably because you are one of the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes thus little impact. Your belief that you know how rich people are going to react is just speculation based upon nothing other than your own opinions. What happened to state tax revenue when the states implemented a "millionaires tax? Did tax revenue go up or down?
Millionaires Go Missing - WSJ.com
You make it sound like the government is being magnanimous in "giving" people a break in their taxes. Cutting taxes is the right and proper thing to do regardless of the way in which people spend their money.Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.
I like the WSJ, and glad you use opinion pieces as well. Let me counter:
Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.
The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.
Given Tax Cuts, Rich Americans Save Instead of Spend - BusinessWeek
Wealthy tend to save, not spend, tax windfalls | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN
So when someone saves money, where does that money go? Are you really this naive? Keep posting articles that ignore human behavior and the benefits to the economy that actual savings generates.
What is it you think banks do with the savings? Keep all the money locked up in the vault?Into savings. Not spent. Not creating jobs. Not helping the economy.
What is it you think banks do with the savings? Keep all the money locked up in the vault?
Firstly, that isn't the point. Tax cuts are a good thing in and of themselves.Nope. But do you have any evidence they loan more with tax cuts?
Into savings. Not spent. Not creating jobs. Not helping the economy.
Firstly, that isn't the point. Tax cuts are a good thing in and of themselves.
Secondly, you make it sound like the money put into a bank just sits there and collects dust. It doesn't. It makes no difference if the banks invest more, less, or the same amount with tax cuts; that money is still being put to use in the economy.
Ok, where does the savings go? Do you believe that sits in a bank vault?
Taxes should represent what the government needs, not how much everyone should pay. Somewhere along the line the powers that be changed the argument into "fairness." Frankly I don't give a damn if the tax cut hurts the economy or helps it. This government needs to be reigned in, and about the only way to do it is to reduce the money coming into it.In the context of the discussion, it does matter. As for in and of themselves, isn't that a subjective judgement? I mean, taxes don't sit in a vaccum either. They serve a purpose. If the tax cuts mean less roads built or repaired, or the military not getting what it really needs (not wants), or even if needed services are curtailed, one could easiler make a subjective judgement that tax cuts are bad in and of themselves.
Again, the value and worth of a tax is in what it does and doesn't do. To most of mind and conservatives argument this centers on whether a tax cut does or does not stimulate the economy and produce jobs, or even reduce the debt. the evidence is lacking that tax cuts do any of that.
And I continue to argue that if we're really concerned with the deficit, we will argue to cut spending and raise taxes.
banks invest that money in other investment vehicles that hopefully pay more than the bank pays out in interest. which, these days, is a little harder to do. or, they lend. at least they used to. deposit gathering hasn't led to greated credit availablity, however.
Taxes should represent what the government needs, not how much everyone should pay. Somewhere along the line the powers that be changed the argument into "fairness." Frankly I don't give a damn if the tax cut hurts the economy or helps it. This government needs to be reigned in, and about the only way to do it is to reduce the money coming into it.
Taxes and spending need to be cut, and for the same reason -- government has far outgrown its bounds and needs to be put back into its proper scope.
I really don't know how you can say a) that the government is in its proper scope in light of the Constitution, and b) that it isn't "really all that different" than it has been.That's another argument, but not new to this president or congress. We've had a progressive tax at least since WWII if not before. And as we are the government, I'm not sure I agree with you about usefullness and proper scope. Nothing today is really all that different than what it has been doing all along.
Maybe, maybe not. At the current rate, everyone is going to have to endure loss of services when this bloated government finally goes tits up. That's hardly debateable, and that is why voting for the usual suspects is going to do nothing to make things better.And most people really will not support loss of services they now rely on, no matter what they say (hence the tea party incoherent message).
I really don't know how you can say a) that the government is in its proper scope in light of the Constitution, and b) that it isn't "really all that different" than it has been.Maybe, maybe not. At the current rate, everyone is going to have to endure loss of services when this bloated government finally goes tits up. That's hardly debateable, and that is why voting for the usual suspects is going to do nothing to make things better.
That all depends upon one's overall political paradigm, so arguing it isn't probably going to do much good. Suffice it to say I vehemently disagree. :shrug:I can say it because people have always used government to tackle large problems. There is a reason for this. It is easier for a large number to carry and huge load, or to tackle bigger problems. This is not new, and it has been allowed all along. And challenges brought before the courts have often allowed this as well. Again, it is our hsitory.
That all depends upon one's overall political paradigm, so arguing it isn't probably going to do much good. Suffice it to say I vehemently disagree. :shrug:
LINK
While long, (8000 words), familiar and with obvious holes - this is a first step of "getting back to basics" by the GOP they're selling to voters. Critics on the Right however, are seeing it as watered down beltway business as usual.
Redstate says:
"At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly."
I give credit to the GOP for seeing the writing on the wall left by the Tea Party: get back to basics or else. The GOP isn't jumping into that pool head first... they're wading in and they should. A vast swing to the right with some "bold" plan espousing cutting Social Security, Medicare and the Dept. of Ed. is a sure fire loser. The missing parts like a pledge to cut earmarks, to pass term limits, or to cut corporate tax to the levels the rest of the world uses is missing. Republicans need to understand however, they can't wade in the pool forever. This is a nice first step but it needs some concrete follow up and not on November 3rd --- sooner. We don't need a bold "let's change Washington into Conservative Utopia" - that's what Obama campaigned with a "Progressive Utopia" and we all know that hope and change went down the toilet quick.
Pledge to America - full text.
I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?
I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.
Nah, the electorate has shown that it is more than happy to be lied to. We don't elect a leader of the executive branch any more, we elect a person we want to have unlimited powers to fix all the world's problems before dinnertime. If you think I'm wrong, go back and look at the **** Obama caught for not stopping the BP oil spill.I'm not just singling out the GOP when I say this, but why would anyone believe lofty campaign promises anymore? Haven't people had enough of being lied to by transparently power-grabbing parties and their relentless sycophants?
I swear... the first party to actually be honest about what they can and cannot do will probably win the next Presidential election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?