Funny thing is that a consumption tax would help people at a Micro level save more and be more fiscally responsible. The thing with an income tax is that the government can ensure money is spent in a fiscally irresponsible way to spur the economy artificially.
I did read your link but i don't think it filled in many holes for me. Consumption is what powers our economy. If we switch, and you are able to get the VAT taxes worked out so they don't hit the middle class too hard (which by the way what about clothes, electronics, telecomm, auto's, etc???), you are going to end up with a 50% tax on everything else. So you basically will cause people to spend more on other things - like vacations, food, a bigger house, etc. And lets say for arguments sake that it drives up the savings rate. What does that do? My understanding from economic theory - and it's been about 20 years since I really studied this stuff from an academic or corporate standpoint - was that increased saving did two things. 1 - it lowered interest rates for everyone. 2 - it spurred investment and loans. Problem is that interest rates are rock bottom already, and there is a ridiculous amount of cash that businesses are sitting on. They don't need loans or investment right now. It's consumer demand that is killing us. And that is always going to be a big chunk of the economy. I agree moving in the direction you say is beneficial in an overheating economy tight on investment. But the reason we don't have investment today isn't because of consumer savings, it is because of a risk adverse business environment. And people already are capping their spending. Credit card debt has dropped. People are more fiscally responsible, which is one reason the economy is dragging. Fundamentally, we need to create more wealth for the middle class without them reducing their spending. That can be done by raising their incomes. How can we do that? How can we make people earn more? How can we make the American worker worth paying a hell of a lot more for than some guy in India, China, Russia, Brasil, or Africa. That's the big question that this country is going to have to solve for. We don't have a tax problem, we have a fundamental lifestyle/cultural/education/productivity/people problem
So lets get this straight, after this president has already spent more than 5 TRILLION more than the government has taken in from tax dollars in 3 1/2 years, the Republican's are sabotaging the economy by not letting him spend another 450 BILLION on the jobs act. This is truly amazing logic.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sUxBJ7n0T8U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This makes no sense. So was it the Democrats who tanked the economy in 2007-2008? When is it who's fault? I'm confused. What have the Republicans been doing to tank the economy? The cited article comes off as blame-mongering.
Clearly, you aren't a government employee. (I already know that, of course, but had to say it anyway)
I feel over the past few years of following politics, I've learned so much about how you can spin anything in a way that help promote your own agenda. It kind of sucks that my temperament is that of someone who prefers make reasoned, logical arguments. When I feel I'd be better served to be an a-hole who can make up BS that only sounds fine on the surface.
moral/philosophical arguments are more interesting than the back and forth link dumps most of these threads devolve into
$787 billion a couple years ago was not clearly not enough. Just another $450 billion funneled through government agency hands and we'd have 2 million jobs more. For sure. Right now. The bull**** people ****ing believe cause someone on their 'team' says so is ****ing insane.
Republicans haven't let Obama spent jack. Compared to Bush, Obama is about as spendthrift as an old grandma who watches TV all day.
No, it's reality dude. I am not "Team" anyone. I'd support a Republican if they actually had a logical platform. They don't. There are a bunch of idiots or rich fools who don't give a f in the world about the average guy. If you don't understand that you are really really naive. Or really really rich.
Nah, you're just sympathetic to their rhetoric-as am I-but at the end of the day they're no different than the guy with the (R) behind their name. You just refuse to look at who's profiting behind the scenes of it all. The blame game is convenient to keep the scam going. They're all playing us. They serve themselves, banks and corporations first.
introduce bill bill dies in democratic senate at the hand of majority leader blame other side break bill into smaller pieces pass parts of it with bipartisan support blame other side
yes, they obviously all serve themselves. They are all rich in Congress. This is not news, nor is it what I am talking about. Republicans represent certain interests, and Dems do as well. Both are influenced by a lot of the same groups, but they are loyal to those groups in very different ways. Republicans get far more money from corporations - do you ever wonder why? Why do you think it was a conservative court that created the Citizens United ruling? Why is now through SuperPac's republicans are raising obscene amounts of money that makes Obama's record fundraising look like a weekly allowance for mowing the lawn. There's a lot of Republicans I have respected greatly, and a lot I dislike strongly. Republicans like Alan Specter. I voted for him when I lived in PA. One of the reasons I am disappointed in the party is because they have purged all the moderates from their ranks. The party has shifted to the right incredibly. So now guys who were once Republicans are putting a D after their name. It's a spectrum. And I sit in the middle for the most part. But the middle has become Democratic because of the extreme shift to the right of Republicans. It needs to shift back or this country is in for a lot of pain.
Are you implying Obama want's to hire everyone on the pubic sector payroll? If you are...um http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png
Through Super Pacs absolutely. Although they are usually the owners of corporations it's the same thing to me (for example Adelson just gave $10MM to Romney. He's an individual, but he owns a massive Casino operation). He stands to lose over a billion dollars before he dies if Obama raises the capital gains tax from 15% to 30%. That's incredible. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
Let's pose a hypothetical, shall we? Let's say the government awards a contract for 10 million dollars to repair a bridge. The winning bidder, a contruction company hires 100 people to repair a bridge. How many net jobs were created? According to your logic, it's zero. According to mine and reality it's 100 (and that's not counting the multiplier effects that happen). It isn't ****ing what your "team" says - it's what basic economics. I would say it's college level, but on the level of denial you inhabit - it's not even high school. Of course the government both creates and sheds jobs. Why would a rational person believe otherwise?
FWIW those 100 jobs might as well equate to temporary labor. A nice short term boost, but once the project is completed there is no more work. Also, do we really need to rebuild bridges? Yeah there is a good chunk of infrastructure that needs work, but it's not like roads and bridges are collapsing left and right. It's not like it really creates any long term sustainable economic growth. It's almost like paying people to be busy imo. I know that's a little simplistic, but repairing older infrastructure that really isn't in terrible condition does little for the economy.
