LookieNoNookie
Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: searching4mysir
The government is taking away any incentive to succeed and continue to keep other people employed.
Precisely how is the government doing this?
Returning the tax rate to th level it was during the boom years of the 90's?
Ken,
It is more than arguable that returning federal tax rates to where they were in Clinton's reign would not terribly (in the long term) damage the economy. In the short term, it would; simple mathematical fact.
It's also arguable that "at this time" it is dangerous to remove income from producers (hourly and corporations)...because, if given (or not absconded by the feds) they (the general public) would spend it...ergo juicing the economy.
I've heard from many Democrats (few Republicans) that eliminating (rescinding) the Bush tax cuts would destroy the economy (only because there's an election cycle going on).
I believe otherwise however, math doesn't lie. Take those revenues from the working class and....you'll have less spending by same. However, the feds would have more to spend...and likely would. Kind of a wash...but not really.
Every economic think tank, with no exceptions, states that to remove the Bush tax cuts would lower GDP by 1 or more %.
That's far above my pay grade to discern but I'll assume they're a smidge smarter than me (that's a huge leap, but I'll accept it).
Ergo to raise taxes (as some {errantly} would argue the rescission of the Bush tax cuts would be) will in fact lower growth.
Now the question ultimately is....at some point we do need to take our medicine.
But....are we sick, and therefore NEED medicine because we're old, frail and in need of a boost or....are we weak and infertile because the feds have kicked us in the nuts and we're simply bowled over and need a little recuperation time?
Again, that's above my pay grade but....I, as a Republican (you'll recall, they're the ones that want no new taxes and want to lower yours) am eager to pay more taxes, so long as they are concurrent with some level of spending cuts.
My preference of course would be....1 to 3. Painful, no doubt, but less so than what we'll have to do in fewer than 5 years when the shit truly hits the fan.
1 buck in new taxes and 3 bucks in costs lowered.
What do you want to bet if Obama gets in....we get the new taxes....but....no cuts.
But the truth is, it's always worked out that way...even when the Republicans in 1994 offered a similar deal.
They only cut taxes.
Why? Because they knew that if they also cut spending, GDP would fall and then...the masses would revolt.
It's time to take our medicine.
I don't give a fuck which party you're in, it's time to pay the piper, and he's gonna get paid whether you agree that he is owed his due or not.
The problem is....no one, Congress or the recipients (you and I) are willing to say "yeah...I own a paving company....when I have an extra half ton, I'll have my guys go out and fill potholes in the street".
And guess why they can't even do so?
Because there's laws keeping them from doing so.
Literally, if they did....they could be fined or go to jail.
Now....how the fuck....fucked up is that?
You can't even go out on a Sunday and wash road signs (which the county and city does as a natural course of business).
If you did....you'd be fined.
(By the way....I did this or actually, I paid my crew to do this. I spent $1,500.00 in legal fees and $675.00 in labor....cleaning signs).
Change the laws....get rid of Davis Bacon that forces good people, skilled to the gills but willing to work for $27.00 an hour instead of $65.00 an hour...to build your roads.
The government isn't fucking you....you are...by letting this shit stand.
I know that Ron Paul didn't stand a chance, and he was by no means Ross Perot's equal but he was asked "okay, how would YOU get rid of the deficit (because it was and is so massive that it seemed improbable that anyone could even make a dent) and he said "That's simple...I'd tell every agency they get EXACTLY what they got last year and no more (which, as you'll recall is currently 1+ trillion over budget) until and only until we reach equilibrium, everyone that comes in under budget by 10% or more gets 5% added to their (90%) budget expenditure".
Pretty damned smart, if you ask me.
Pain....but not giant pain.
Growth, but not fantastic growth.
"Growth" (by a new definition) for those agencies that found ways to spend less but, even with 5% added each year, for those that cut 10% or more, their budget would fall by a net 5% annually, but their growth "losses" would be backstopped by a nice little 5% bump against their 90% new budget, even as their total fell annually, and of course, as you find yourself finding ways to do more with less, more than likely these agencies would improve their results federally.
Annually.
And for those that stayed at budget or grew....they'd lose 15% the following year...so the incentive would clearly be for those agencies to act like private businesses....and they would or....they'd suffer.
And every year the budget would fall slightly, even including entitlements, his plan was that when we got to the point of equilibrium....at that point, 2% the first year and then 1% added each year would go towards the debt.
In his plan (in 1992) our debt (then 4 - 5 trillion) would have been paid off in 11 years...12 tops...if the Congress didn't sidestep (which of course, they no doubt would have...but it's still better than keeping on doing the same fucked up shit!).
You all know you have to pay your bills....Congress doesn't.
They don't let you keep refinancing that 1983 Jeep. And if the banks were truly foolish enough to do so....by the time the thing was 20 years old, the financing available to you in the private market, for an originally valued brand new vehicle of $35,000.00 would be less than 800 bucks.
The feds, on the other hand determine that a NEW Jeep would go for 70 grand and refinance based on that value and they refinance it at 90 grand because surely you'd want a new stereo.
That's what Congress does.
We all need to pay more...but, we also have to stop these pricks from upping the ante.
Alright....I'm now slowly stepping off my soapbox.
You may all return to your original programming.
|
RE: CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins - 
Profile
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