joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fellow
From a hypothetical congressman's perspective initiating a legislation aimed at increasing taxes for the rich would be a win-win situation. It would please the lower classes and it would bring in lot of cash from the lobbyists. Also, the legislation would be killed for sure preserving his/her own income.
Before talking about raising taxes, the government should demonstrate it can actually collect taxes from the super-rich and it should substantially reduce mindless military spending.
All this debate is somewhat wrong focusing on giving the government even more power. The main problem is actually that the masses have too little income and too much debt. This is what is killing the economy. Raising taxes does not solve this problem in straight way. The money will sink into bottomless pit of the bureaucracy. Reducing for example the trade deficit would create jobs for sure.
A 'hypothetical congressman...'? Why not an ACTUAL Congressman (or Congresswoman)? We are paying ACTUAL tax dollars for ACTUAL people to represent us in the ACTUAL Congress. Because anyone could say anything they wanted (i.e. push an agenda that favors their political thoughts) when using a 'hypothetical duly elected offical'.
Why not give the goverment more power? Isn't it suppose to represent us, the American people?
Wouldn't it be neat to set up a taxing mechanizism that allows companies not to hire workers (i.e. pay higher taxes). But, if they hire unemployed workers (even more for those unemployed for a year) for longer than three years, their tax rate goes down based largely on a number of circumstances. Yes, it will be very complex and complicated (well and beyond the typical conservative's brain activity). And it has to be that way, to cover the extremely braod spectrum of industries and types of businesses that are in existance right now.
Your right that raising taxes would not work on the immediate problem. However, you can base program's cost on that future revenue with a short term loan (that is paid with the future taxes) that could very well help the country out. In order to get this nation out of a recession, the goverment would have to step in, create an artifical demand (since we have boat loads of supply) for a year or two, to get the economy rolling again. This is not a new thought, nor a mere 'liberal' thought. This comes straight out of the economics books. How did the United States get ouf the Great Depression exactly?
Take for example Health Care. You can not export doctors, nurses, and such to other countries when the patients are still here in the country. Putting money into that industry (towards the bottom structures, not the upper echeloens of the industry) would see a greater effect on the industry and economy it supports. Doctors, nurses and such still have to buy groceries, cloths, gas, etc. The idea is to put a greater level of dollars into the economy and 'circulation'. As the normal demand grows, the goverment can step back. Applying the money from the taxes on the short term loan as it applied directly to the health care industry itself, would hopefully even out the issue. Granted nothing is perfect. But as of yet, have we seen Republicans come up with any intelligent (based on facts, evidence, and economics) ideas to helping the economy?
The ones I've seen would do more damage. Tax for example 'cutting the budget'. Currently we are in a deficit (created during the previous administration) of $1.65 trillion (latest figures). How many conservatives know what cutting $100 Billion out of that budget would cost America in terms of jobs? That answer came from a CBO article back in April (good luck finding it...), that stated between 750,000 to 950,000 (depending on the industries affected) jobs would be lost. Some in the immedate months but most, months afterward (and most Americans would never connect the two two events together). The three groups effected:
1) The largest: Private sector employees. The US Goverment does ALOT of business with companies big and small, handling things big and small. From Post-It Notes to F-22 Raptors. And it affects all US States and territories. Companies typically hire employees to handle goverment contracts (i.e. Boeing when working with the Defense Budget). If those contracts dried up, what happens to the workers?
2) The smallest: Goverment Employees (i.e. public sector). Self-Explainatory. As funding goes down, cuts and layoffs soon follow.
3) The middle: Everyone Down Stream. Private sector and public employees have to pay for food, gas, cloths, etc. Where do they do their business? Stores big and small. Big corporations and small 'ma & pa' stores alike. With less workers paying from the first two groups, these group of workers are removed due to 'business being down'.
So, dropping that $1.65 Trillion deficit down to zero would be akin to placing many millions of Americans into the unemployment market....DURING....a recession (with already high unemployment). Does that sound intelligent or wise to you conservatives?
< Message edited by joether -- 10/28/2011 1:20:11 PM >
|
multi_billionaire calles for higher taxes on rich, stim... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread