Ok, so...I don't believe tax cuts would be neccesary if the american people receive enough money to help with the mortgage crisis along with reform on availability to recieve loans
The US governent doesnt have the power to tax profits for a company that doesnt do buisness here...Overseas profits should be highly taxed and replace the money the government gives for handouts
Sorry, the economic issue is multy faceted and I went off on another tangent.
I don't believe tax cuts would be neccesary if the american people receive enough money to help with the mortgage crisis along with reform on availability to recieve loans
Overseas profits should be highly taxed (or strip them of citizenship) and replace the money the government gives for handouts
Take a look at the U6 unemployment statistics, which is more accurate because it includes those who have run out of unemployment benefits, but still don't have a job.
How do you propose civilization as a whole learns about living beyond your means? Government assistance for poor decisions?
:doh
How do you propose civilization as a whole learns about living beyond your means? Government assistance for poor decisions?
:doh
How do you possibly run out of unemployment benefits and still not have a job? Don't they go for like 6 months or something?
Ok, so...
Seems to me that if the $x they get from a tax cut doesnt help them, then the $x they get from a government spending program won't hellp them to the same degree.
Given that, why NOT the tax cut, and WHY the spending program?
The US governent doesnt have the power to tax profits for a company that doesnt do buisness here...
They already govern loan sharking...this is exactly the same except on a broader scale with smaller interests
You are avoiding the point:The tax cuts are not enough now because the problem snowballed too much before action was taken so a LARGE stimulus is needed for quick fix before collapse
Tax cuts may have helped if implimented six years ago
The government has power to tax the money when they bring it back into this country
You are avoiding the point:
Seems to me that if the $x they get from a tax cut doesnt help them, then the $x they get from a government spending program won't hellp them to the same degree.
If the $x they get from a tax cut will not help, how will the $x they get from government spending?
Understand that $x = $x
A friend of mine couldn't find a job for over half a year. He has a masters in industrial enginerring and has worked in the field for over 20 years. The only thing he could find was a ****ty adjunct teaching job. He's found jobs since then but it took awhile. And this was 3-4 years ago before the current crisis.
So, why not first cut the taxes and then make up the difference, if there is any, with government spending??If you mean a bigger return on their payed in taxes I don't believe that even if most americans recieved %100 percent of their payed taxes back for the year it would be enough...would need a few years worth now
This is why a higher amount stimulus package is needed over taxes
Come on now, government is the people. When the people decide to start spending and investing, then the people can be taxed.
Anyone else see the irony here?I have stated this time and time again. You can not compare unemployment numbers between any EU nation or the US. The US numbers are not "real" numbers but a freaking poll. The real number is estimated at 13 to 14% in the US.
So, why not first cut the taxes and then make up the difference, if there is any, with government spending??
So you agree:I agree this would be the same but people that were unemployed about a year now would see no benefit from tax cuts
If we look at each country, there are different stories. Germany the worlds second or third largest exporter (larger than the US btw), is dependant on exports some what, which means if people stop buying, then they will get hurt. But so will China, Japan, and all the other big exporters.
So you agree:
Cut taxes first
Spend money second.
So, contrary to your previous claim, you were NOT just reporting the news.
There is no such thing as 100% capitalism.... and, 100% capitalism would dictate that there would be no 'bailouts'.
You, yourself, said you were just reporting the news.Where in the heck do you get that from? I never said I didn't analyze the situation..
Under capitalism, where the market decides what companies live and die, there are -no- bailouts.the bailouts are hyper capitalism. Paying to save the companies, instead of just throwing that money to the people instead to stimulate the economy, which would clearly be judged by Americans as socialism.
No, what we need is less socialism; especially corporate socialism. We moved away from the free market quite some time ago, opting for some horrible version of corporate capitalism. We removed much of the mobility. Poor people don't have that much chance of getting rich and the rich have virtually no way of becoming poor. What's needed is true free market capitalism with full class mobility. That way no one can stagnate. Want to remain rich? Well you're gonna have to work at it. While at the same time opening up avenues for the poor to start climbing the economic ladder. I'm not saying bottom 5% to top 1% sort of thing; but give realistic opportunity to at least make it into the middle class. The unfortunate truth is that with our corporate capitalist model and freezing of class structure; those born poor are most likely to die poor. In the meantime people like Paris Hilton will never chance being poor. Should live by the sweat of your brow.
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?