We have got to have a tax increase.

[ALiberalModerate]

So explain to me again why we should raise taxes instead of cutting expenditures to pay for the debt?

Ok, what are you going to cut? You going to pull out of Iraq? Drastically slash defense spending? Privatize all National Parks? Privatize NASA?

What are you going to cut?

 

[128shot]

Ding, we got one with NASA.

FDA isn't needed..

SS

Medicaid..


thats about 45 trillion dollars.

 

[Ether]

Ok, what are you going to cut? You going to pull out of Iraq? Drastically slash defense spending? Privatize all National Parks? Privatize NASA?

What are you going to cut?

Ahh, now we are getting into actual substance rather than political posturing

Privatizing NASA or National Parks probably wouldn't have much of an effect on the budget, and would only serve to **** people off.

Pulling out of Iraq or cutting defense spending could help, but since only a fifth of the budget is spent on national security, we'll have to look elsewhere. We can start with all the argicultural subsidies and corporate welfare doled out to big businesses every year. That's hundreds of billions of dollars already.

 

[Vader]

Can anyone say "Pie in the sky".

There is pragmatism and there is ideology, I think your response falls in the latter catagory.

I think we'll be ok if we increase taxes on big businesses that outsource jobs to foreign countries. I saw we take all tax breaks away from companies like Microsoft, IBM, Honeywell, and various others that outsource jobs to countries like India. After that, we can then raise their taxes 50% or so and that will make it cost effective for them to bring all of those jobs back to America. This will lead to a nice lull in unemployment and the economy will recover enough to make the American dollar more stable.

:soap

In addition to this, it will punish the greedy corporate scum who gave American jobs to foreigners.

:shoot

-Vader

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ding, we got one with NASA.

FDA isn't needed..

SS

Medicaid..


thats about 45 trillion dollars.

Wait though, if you get rid of Social Security, which by the way would never happen, but if you did, you loose a big source of revenue through payroll taxes which only makes the deficit problem worse. Hell, we would be bankrupt the year you did it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ahh, now we are getting into actual substance rather than political posturing

Privatizing NASA or National Parks probably wouldn't have much of an effect on the budget, and would only serve to **** people off.

Pulling out of Iraq or cutting defense spending could help, but since only a fifth of the budget is spent on national security, we'll have to look elsewhere. We can start with all the argicultural subsidies and corporate welfare doled out to big businesses every year. That's hundreds of billions of dollars already.

Defense is more than a fifth of the budget if you leave out Social Security and Medicare. In that case, its the largest single expenditure. I agree on the corporate welfare and agricultural subsidies. It will never happen though. The only way to get rid of the corporate welfare is to get of or severely constrain corporate contributions and corporate lobbying.

 

[teacher]

On the surface it is an economics thread, but its very relative to current events so I put it here. Anyway,we have got to have a tax increase.

This is easy.

Lower tax rates = increased tax revenue.

Look it up.

Can you say, "stimulates the economy"?

CBO

 

[128shot]

Wait though, if you get rid of Social Security, which by the way would never happen, but if you did, you loose a big source of revenue through payroll taxes which only makes the deficit problem worse. Hell, we would be bankrupt the year you did it.

why?

just replace them with a debt tax and we will eventually pay it off...




Vader, we allowed that to happen...

 

[Vader]

Wait though, if you get rid of Social Security, which by the way would never happen, but if you did, you loose a big source of revenue through payroll taxes which only makes the deficit problem worse. Hell, we would be bankrupt the year you did it.

Wait a minute! :roll:

Nasa's budget can be trimmed and the FDA can be seriously downsized, however, Medicade is an absolute necessity. We cannot deny Americans access to medical care.

I still say the best option is to make big business pay additional taxes for outsourcing labor to foreign countries. Also, big business needs no tax breaks. If we make companies like Microsoft, IBM, Honeywell, and the countless other big businesses that are raping the nations pay additional taxes for sending jobs overseas, we will substantially improve the economy.

This plan has the benefit of bringing tens of thousands of jobs back to America as well as providing the funds necessary to make indespensible programs like Medicare and Medicade available to more Americans.

Since big business is the cause of a great deal of unemployment in the United States, why not make them foot the bill?

-Vader

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is easy.

Lower tax rates = increased tax revenue.

Look it up.

Can you say, "stimulates the economy"?

CBO

When did this happen? Supply Side economics is not economic science. CBO forcasts consistently predict a reduction in revenue as a result of the tax cuts. There is not a single supply side economics department in any University in America. It is a concept invented by a journalist. When we tried it in the 80s, it failed. It was not until after 3 tax increases, and constrained growth in spending durring the 90s that we had balanced budgets again. The economy is growing at a healthy pace, deficits still are huge. Revenue increases when the economy grows, but if tax cuts are out of balance with revenue increases and growth, then you still have deficits. Not a single non-partisan economist in American would attribute much of the current growth to the tax cuts over the last 4 years. If you add up the total amount of the tax cuts so far and that money introduced into the economy, it is less than 1% of GDP. Look it up, that is economics.

 

[128shot]

Ultimately we make the corporations what they are.


Are you willing to bear the brunt of the cost it would take to build most of things coming out of China in the USA?


I imagine we drove our own jobs out of the USA, as we wanted cheaper items.


As consumeing becomes higher, our unemployment rate rose a little too. Why? because we forced jobs out so we could consume more.


Thats exactly what happend, in a very oversimilified way.

 

[Vader]

why?

just replace them with a debt tax and we will eventually pay it off...




Vader, we allowed that to happen...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We let it happen by allowing it to become cost effective for big business to give American jobs to to foreigners. We can fix that problem by creating taxes, which make it more expensive to outsource. The result would be ecomonic stimulation. When Americans have jobs they have money to spend, which means that both local and national ecomonies would be stimulated.

This very priniciple is what led Mr. Ford to pay his employees a decent wage. He stimulated the economy buy providing jobs to Americans. He also allowed his employees to purchase vehicles very cheaply. Again, he stimulated the economy. American's with cars have to buy fuel, auto parts, oil, and even occasionally pay a mechanic for a tune-up.

We need to stimulate our economy because it helpes every one of us. In the long run the improved economy will make the American dollar stronger, which will lead to a great deal more trade with other nations. They will trade with us because our ecomony will be stronger.

- Vader.

 

[128shot]

I don't really see a problem, I view it differently.


We could always cut out minimum wage so jobs aren't created as artifical, thats one way to stimulate certain jobs to come back...

another is to slash bogus regulations..

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't really see a problem, I view it differently.


We could always cut out minimum wage so jobs aren't created as artifical, thats one way to stimulate certain jobs to come back...

another is to slash bogus regulations..

So then you have slave labor and polluters in America instead of elsewhere?? In a global economy, you are going to have outsourcing. That is economics 101. Its not so much greedy CEOs as it is greedy shareholders which would describe any investor (and most of us are investors).

 

[Ether]

Defense is more than a fifth of the budget if you leave out Social Security and Medicare. In that case, its the largest single expenditure. I agree on the corporate welfare and agricultural subsidies. It will never happen though. The only way to get rid of the corporate welfare is to get of or severely constrain corporate contributions and corporate lobbying.

What would be the reason for leaving out Social Security and Medicare?

Wait though, if you get rid of Social Security, which by the way would never happen, but if you did, you loose a big source of revenue through payroll taxes which only makes the deficit problem worse. Hell, we would be bankrupt the year you did it.

Those revenues are used exclusively to pay out benefits to retirees. If those obligations are eliminated, then there need not be a deficit in the long run. Payroll taxes are not part of the discretionary budget.

When did this happen? Supply Side economics is not economic science. CBO forcasts consistently predict a reduction in revenue as a result of the tax cuts. There is not a single supply side economics department in any University in America. It is a concept invented by a journalist. When we tried it in the 80s, it failed. It was not until after 3 tax increases, and constrained growth in spending durring the 90s that we had balanced budgets again. The economy is growing at a healthy pace, deficits still are huge. Revenue increases when the economy grows, but if tax cuts are out of balance with revenue increases and growth, then you still have deficits. Not a single non-partisan economist in American would attribute much of the current growth to the tax cuts over the last 4 years. If you add up the total amount of the tax cuts so far and that money introduced into the economy, it is less than 1% of GDP. Look it up, that is economics.

I agree with most of this paragraph. The Laffer Curve only stipulates that tax rates of 100% and 0% will result in virtually no revenues. It does not tell us where this mysterious "optimum" of taxation exists. Supply-siders are wrong to assume this optimum exists at every point on the curve. Of course, it's safe to say that if you cut the rate from 97% to 93%, revenues will probably go up. But this is certainly not true for the much lower rates we have today.

Empirically, there's very little evidence of a direct relationship between tax cuts and increases in revenues. Theoretically, the case for tax cuts based on the Laffer Curve is very weak.

Supply-side economics is a murky part of the science. Unlike other schools of thought, it has no major leader or treatise. Instead, it is a potluck of different ideas which are then pushed by an incoherent movement of people, scattered throughout the media and political establishment.

 

[Ether]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We let it happen by allowing it to become cost effective for big business to give American jobs to to foreigners. We can fix that problem by creating taxes, which make it more expensive to outsource. The result would be ecomonic stimulation. When Americans have jobs they have money to spend, which means that both local and national ecomonies would be stimulated.

I don't really see what's wrong with outsourcing, but I don't want to start a whole debate over it, since this is a thread about taxation. However, I am quite skeptical about your solution. By making firms less value productive you are indirectly hurting the consumers. How does this stimulate the economy?

 

[128shot]

So then you have slave labor and polluters in America instead of elsewhere?? In a global economy, you are going to have outsourcing. That is economics 101. Its not so much greedy CEOs as it is greedy shareholders which would describe any investor (and most of us are investors).

Erm, you ever wonder why most jobs people get are above minimum wage in the first place?


because thats what the job is worth.



Look at a movie theater, do most have Ushers anymore? nope, if you decrease minimum wage and allowed lets say a 13 or 14 year old to work there, they can make a little cash, pay taxes, and drum roll please...


gain some experience in the workforce.


All this sounds good to me.


Polluting?


There are volcanoes that blow out more c02 than the human world does in 3 years. This happens year after year after year.

and if you REALLY want to talk about pollution, go to china. This place is relatively clean, and really has been since the early 80s, yet we keeping adding regulation after regulation after regulation.


Must of which aren't all that affect or implode the cost of building anything to stimulate the jobs. Ever heard of subsidies? Thats where they should go, toward pollution management. If we the tax payer want to nail businesses like that, we should be paying for them to say here.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Erm, you ever wonder why most jobs people get are above minimum wage in the first place?


because thats what the job is worth.



Look at a movie theater, do most have Ushers anymore? nope, if you decrease minimum wage and allowed lets say a 13 or 14 year old to work there, they can make a little cash, pay taxes, and drum roll please...


gain some experience in the workforce.


All this sounds good to me.


Polluting?


There are volcanoes that blow out more c02 than the human world does in 3 years. This happens year after year after year.

and if you REALLY want to talk about pollution, go to china. This place is relatively clean, and really has been since the early 80s, yet we keeping adding regulation after regulation after regulation.


Must of which aren't all that affect or implode the cost of building anything to stimulate the jobs. Ever heard of subsidies? Thats where they should go, toward pollution management. If we the tax payer want to nail businesses like that, we should be paying for them to say here.

Do we want 12 year olds working? I am not talking about mowing yards either. Also, CO2 is not pollution. And, we actually release more in one year than a volcano does (the whole volcano's produce more than we do is a right wing myth propagated by Limbaugh). If you don't have environmental regulations, you have uncontrolled pollution, there is no economic incentive to not pollute. Thats why we have regulations, to level the playing field between companies that would choose to be clean and companies that would not.

Also, why should you be paid to follow the law?

 

[128shot]

Because its economically crippling otherwise?



Ushering is an ok job, I don't see why a 13 year old or 14 year old couldn't do that.


Its absurd to think that I ment they should be working in sweatshops.



If you're going to attract more jobs, there are somethings you just have to do. Even if it seems wrong.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Because its economically crippling otherwise?



Ushering is an ok job, I don't see why a 13 year old or 14 year old couldn't do that.


Its absurd to think that I ment they should be working in sweatshops.



If you're going to attract more jobs, there are somethings you just have to do. Even if it seems wrong.

I would have wanted that job when I was 13, I am just saying you have to be careful about creating a cheap labor market for children.

 

[Kelzie]

Because its economically crippling otherwise?



Ushering is an ok job, I don't see why a 13 year old or 14 year old couldn't do that.


Its absurd to think that I ment they should be working in sweatshops.



If you're going to attract more jobs, there are somethings you just have to do. Even if it seems wrong.

I really don't miss ushers at the movies. Anyone else? Maybe the jobs were axed because they were useless, not because minimum wage or taxes was so high.

 

[128shot]

Twas really an example...


I think in some areas cashiers can be 14, baggers etc.


Menial jobs that are nice but not really around anymore.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Twas really an example...


I think in some areas cashiers can be 14, baggers etc.


Menial jobs that are nice but not really around anymore.

Also, if environmental regulations were so crippling, then why over the last 30 years have they not been. We had them durring the 90s and had a building boom and a very strong economy.

 

[128shot]

Why is it so hard to build a refinery then?


coal plant?

Nuclear ? (I suppose certain regulations ARE nessarcy on a nuclear plant)


factorys?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why is it so hard to build a refinery then?


coal plant?

Nuclear ? (I suppose certain regulations ARE nessarcy on a nuclear plant)


factorys?

I will agree with you on nuclear. The reason why more coal plants are not built is that there is currently an excess supply of power generation. The reasons refineries are not built is that oil companies and independent refinery companies have chosen not to build them as it is in their financial interest to have a constrained refining capacity. How can the environmental lobby who spends maybe a few million every year lobbying congress compete with the oil and coal lobby who spends hundreds of millions every year lobbying congress.