How does the governer of TX cut taxes? The TX Congress is the only body that can cut taxes and it has (until recently) been largely Democratic.
Economic amateurism at its finest, ladies and gentlemen. Major, you do not understand the simplest tenets of corporate finance. The reason capitalism is far and away the most efficient economic system is because it is the perfect mechanism in which to channel capital towards its most efficient use. Corporations operate on these principles as well. Blah blah blah ... You can talk all you want about efficient markets and putting money into the hands of investors, etc, etc. The problem with you theory is simple. The cost of capital is already at long-term lows. No one is investing as-is. Business is not investing in new infrastructure or technology with the money they have - and giving them more cheap money isn't going to make a damn difference. They aren't investing because people aren't buying the products. Until that changes, nothing else will change. A dollar saved by a rich person is infinitely more valuable to the economy than a dollar spent by a poor person. Why? Because that dollar that is saved by the rich person is put in a financial institution, where it is then channeled to its most efficient use. This is a load of crap. Wherever you put the money, it's going to flow around until it ends up in a financial institution somewhere. The difference between giving it to investors or the poor is that, through the poor, it'll flow multiple times through the economy first before ending up there. That means it will create an *instant* boost rather than the delayed boost caused by the multiplier effect. Since this is supposed to be a *stimulus* package, I would think the instant boost would be a nice little plus. For some odd reason, Greenspan disagrees mightily with your little theory on inflation suppression. Monetary policy continues to be the preferred method of fighting inflation, to be in opposition to this is to argue directly with Greenspan's logic. You sir, are in no position to do that. Funny you mention Greenspan. He disagrees with your position on long-term debt & tax policy. If he is the end-all, be-all of economics as you seem to argue, do you accept that you're simply wrong? Perhaps you mistakenly learned that there was only one person in the world who was correct on economic matters. The reality is that many prominent economists disagree on Greenspan on many issues. Relying on "Greenspan disagrees - don't argue with him" is a sad statement on the quality of your argument. BTW, of course monetary policy is the preferred method to fight inflation - its far easier to control and manipulate in the short-run. That does not, in any way, imply that tax policy doesn't or can't have an effect on inflation. To ignore that effect and say "Greenspan doesn't like it" is ridiculous. But the vital part of this equation which you have chosen to exclude is that this money is not evaporating into thin air. The vast majority of the debt that the US issues to finance the deficit is purchased by US citizens. These interest payments go right back into our economy as they are paid to the bond/note/bill holders. Of course it does. It serves as an income redistribution. The investors get the interest income while the entire nation foots the bill to pay it through taxes. Bottom line is that I'm paying more in taxes this year than last year for the exact same services, and I will pay even more next year. That's not a healthy path for a nation to headed. Every year that the interest burden grows as a share of taxes, the country is worse off. http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news/buffett_tax/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Renewing his criticism of the dividend tax cut laid out by the Senate last week, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett called the proposal "voodoo economics" that uses "Enron-style accounting." The Senate's plan for dividends to be 50 percent tax free in 2003, 100 percent tax free in 2004 through 2006 and then face the full tax in 2007 would "further tilt the tax scales toward the rich," Buffett wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. Buffett posed a hypothetical situation in which Berkshire Hathaway, which does not currently pay a dividend, paid $1 billion in dividends next year. Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent. "The 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax free -- seems a bit light," Buffett wrote. Instead of the Senate's tax cut plan, Buffett proposed that it provide tax reductions to those who need and will spend the money in the form of a Social Security tax "holiday" or a tax rebate to lower-income people. "Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets," Buffett added. He closed the piece by saying that the "government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."
We should scrap everything in the federal government except the military and devote the rest of the budget to paying off the debt. After the debt is paid off, taxes are cut to the same proportional rates they are at now, but in total adding up only to the price of the military. Everything else is then put on a per use program. This means toll roads, more expensive airline tickets, etc.
Scrapping everything except the military won't work. I agree there is plenty of frivilous spending, but cutting programs that fund education, and try to curtail pollution, isn't wise. The pollution is already too much, and cutting off any and all regulation of it would only hurt. Same with Education. The money supposedly 'saved' will be payed back plus some. The pollution will have to be cleaned up, lack of education will hurt almost every industry there is, end up with more crime, which will then require even more money to combat, try in the courts, and cost money to house the prisoners. These are just a couple of examples of federal programs necessary. It's like changing your oil in your car. You may save a few bucks short term if you don't get a tuneup and change the oil, but when your car doesn't run, it will cost a lot more money to fix than it would have to take care of it in the first place.
Education becomes privatised and tree-hugging lefties organize boycotts of big polluters. Problems solved.
100% Privatized education gives the best education to the wealthy and lesser quality education to the poor. In addition to the pollution there is the FDA. There weren't those regulations before and if you've read Upton Sinclair's the Jungle, you will realize that not having restrictions on the food industry is very dangerous. In addition there will be all sorts of unsafe working conditions including for children etc. We've seen that kind of scenario before in the Robber Baron period. It wasn't a positive thing.
Thats why we have people like you to donate money to educate poor children and form watchdog groups to mointor working conditions and food safety. Geez, do I have to think of everything.
Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent. Oh that Warren Buffet he must be a commie!! Let's hear from Bill Gates Sr. on the repeal of the inheritance tax. ************ "For more than a decade, a powerful group of special-interest organizations has waged a multimillion-dollar campaign to turn public opinion against a tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. It worked. The "death tax," many Americans now believe, afflicts family farmers and small-business owners, robbing them of the opportunity to bequeath their lives' fortunes to their children. The people pushing this line include the heirs to the Gallo wine and Mars candy fortunes, along with an organized association of more than 100 independent newspaper owners. Together with a veritable antitax industry of think tanks and lobbying firms in Washington, these groups have formed a potent "death tax elimination" lobby. Of course, the vast majority of family farmers will never owe an estate tax. Rather, the windfall of estate tax repeal will shower upon the heirs and heiresses of the 3,000 wealthiest estates. This elite group will inherit billions in appreciated stock and real estate -- significant capital gains, many of which have never been subject to taxation." link
We should scrap everything in the federal government except the military One of the joys of this bbs is that we get to see this philosophy stripped of such PR spin as calling it "compassionate conservatism". This view point is naive if it purports to be Bush crony capitalism. As seen in Iraq, wherever the government can spend money the Carlyle Group and others who specialize in making money off of government contracts will be there. Privatizing say the VA hospitals would be attractive to these types. I have explained how to them military pay is distasteful like welfare payments as the Bush cronies can't cash out on it. Now if they could privatize the VA and give multi billion contracts to their campaign contributors and cronies , now we're talking. This type of cronism with the tax payers money led to the rise of the Civil Service as people got tired of it.
Exactly right... For example, the notion of "free" junior college tuition for everyone...Novel Texan Democratic idea, but who is going to pay for it and why support such a high level social program...Just let people get loans and grants like everyone else...
Do you know that Bush voted for steel tariffs on imported steel? Why, not because he wanted to promote free markets, but because he wanted the vote of the Pennsylvania and West Virginia steel industry, who was losing revenues to the Japanese because they can provide steel at cheaper prices. Where's the incentive for the Pensylvania or West Virginia steel industry to become more efficient?
Because Japan has other issues as well. They are also facing a credit crunch, just like we will in the near future. And they also opened the monetary floodgates in the 1980's just as we did in the 1990's. Even if we had high savings, we would still have problems. But high savings is still a good thing.
That would be totally insufficient. If 30 people donated $500,000 each, it wouldn't compare the revenue fifty million tax payers donated $5 each.
