Tax cuts don't work

[D-rock]

Wanna get the economy moving again? Job creation of course is the obvious answer, but employment is the last thing to rebound during an economic recovery. We need a catalyst to jumpstart that recovery first. As the economy improves and credit is more readily available, businesses will be more willing to hire permanent full-time employees.

Wouldn't the most effective and fastest method of doing that is for the government to become the employer of last resort, and give everybody a reasonable job that needs one if they want it?

It seems silly to give tax breaks and money to a few that don't really need it so they maybe do something else for somebody that may cause somebody else to do something else again with a bunch of theoretical maybies happening after that, while hoping it filters through multiple levels of a system made to make the rich richer and nobody just keeps it, and then pray everything works out in the end somehow.

Wouldn't the most logical and effective way be the most direct and non-passively done one?

 

[Facetious]

Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich!

Good, encourage them to invest more of their capital abroad where they can earn a better return on their money, they don't have to invest in America, they don't own this economic downturn... we're a sideshow to them they don't need u.s.!

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Of course tax cuts work.

They do exactly what they are supposed to do: funnel even more cash into the top 2% of high net worth individuals and corporations.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Supply-side voodoo-which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse-has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts. In fact Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.

 

[bostonkid9]

But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts. In fact Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.

Most people never mention this. Many people think that Ronald Reagan was just an advocate of small government and smaller taxes. He was an advocate for small government. But you're right that he did raise taxes elsewhere to offset the tax cuts. I've read articles about this before.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Most people never mention this. Many people think that Ronald Reagan was just an advocate of small government and smaller taxes. He was an advocate for small government. But you're right that he did raise taxes elsewhere to offset the tax cuts. I've read articles about this before.

Raising taxes here to offset tax cuts there ... seems like an exercise in cosmetics to make the docile cows think they are getting something - change - while actually nothing changes.

SSDD :dunno:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

In a 3-4% growth in annual GDP and 5-6% unemployment rate, tax hikes work, if you are running a deficit, right now they don't. Clinton raised them in a boom, Reagan cut them in a recession, but guess what they are not working now, but I don't think raising them is smart in 2011.

 

[Hot Mega]

I do.
Is that what a follow up article printed on the story, that they chose not to pay? If so, the Cranick family have to take responsibility for A) inadvertently setting their own home on fire and B) not paying the premiums required for the City of South Fulton to run a fire dept. Really, if this family burns trash along side their home, they'd better make damned sure their annual fire service fees get paid!
I do have a big problem with the City of South Fulton Fire Department arriving on the scene and essentially standing down and not fighting the fire before them... orders are orders I guess :dunno:
That's dirt cheap, though, $75-/12 months fire protection...although it does seem kinda weird having to pay a separate annual premium for it, huh?
If it were me, I'd just 'em draft my checking acct. and be done with it, I'd never have to receive a bill again!

Oh well, live-n-learn the hard way for some people I guess.



Well, governments are now using fees as a means to supplement budget shortfalls, but all in all, I think that it's semantics as fees are basically tax increases with a friendlier namesake.

It's my supposition that they willfully neglected (conscientiously chose not) to pay the tax (frankly because they were given a choice IMO).

I suppose your word 'want', their word 'forgot' and my word 'chose' can all be considered semantics in the end.

Quick question, since this is a tax that they were given the option to pay or not..what would happen to the Fired Dept. if no one "chose" to pay the tax...err premium...errr fee?:o

 

[Trident1]

Good, encourage them to invest more of their capital abroad where they can earn a better return on their money, they don't have to invest in America, they don't own this economic downturn... we're a sideshow to them they don't need u.s.!

Bingo.

 

[Hot Mega]

Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich!

Good, encourage them to invest more of their capital abroad where they can earn a better return on their money, they don't have to invest in America, they don't own this economic downturn... we're a sideshow to them they don't need u.s.!

Bingo.

Did I miss something? When did they need encouragement to do something they do at every possible turn anyway irrespective of tax circumstance??

 

[Straight Shooter]

In a 3-4% growth in annual GDP and 5-6% unemployment rate, tax hikes work, if you are running a deficit, right now they don't. Clinton raised them in a boom, Reagan cut them in a recession, but guess what they are not working now, but I don't think raising them is smart in 2011.

He cut taxes but he also enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts. In fact Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Wouldn't the most effective and fastest method of doing that is for the government to become the employer of last resort, and give everybody a reasonable job that needs one if they want it?

It seems silly to give tax breaks and money to a few that don't really need it so they maybe do something else for somebody that may cause somebody else to do something else again with a bunch of theoretical maybies happening after that, while hoping it filters through multiple levels of a system made to make the rich richer and nobody just keeps it, and then pray everything works out in the end somehow.

Wouldn't the most logical and effective way be the most direct and non-passively done one?

Your point is well taken. But IMO, putting government in charge as an employer of last resort is the LAST thing that I want. Where does the money to pay those salaries come from? From us. It sorta becomes the snake that eats its own tail. The stimulus package, depending on who you talk to, say it created jobs or it didn't. Well, it did indeed create jobs. But most of them were, in a nutshell, public sector jobs. The private sector was unaffected and corporations have been sitting back hoarding their cash, cutting their payrolls and waiting for the next shoe to drop: i.e. tax hikes. Things are a lot more complex than this simple explanation, of course, but I don't want to write a dissertation!

Remember back to my first post, I said that we should give tax breaks to the lower and middle class. The ones who are really hurting. While I abhor the idea of wealth distribution, in desperate times like these I agree that maybe forcing the richest Americans to pony up a little more taxes on a temporary basis might be beneficial. But our Congress is, to be blunt, a shopaholic that keeps maxing out its credit card like it's on some kind of financial kamikaze mission. That crap needs to stop or the whole country will go into ruin.

Some extra revenue from the rich, spending cuts combined with the fact that we're winding down our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, should help ease the pressure on the U.S. budget. God willing ....

 

[Hot Mega]

Of course I will pay mine, and I will pay them gladly.
I grew up in a time when paying taxes was the American way. To not pay taxes (ie, tax dodgers) were unAmerican - some even called them "hippies".
I've no children, but I will gladly pay for the health care and education of our nation's children. To do so will only strengthen our nation's future, in body and in mind. To attempt to definance, undermine and destroy our nation's history is unAmerican.
I am not old, but I will gladly pay for the health care for the elderly. Many have already paid their fair share. To attempt to pull the rug from them would be unAmerican.
I am in good health, but I am intelligent enough to realize that there are some who are not. I am employed, but I know there are many who are not. To leave those less fortunate than I am out in the cold so I have more coins in my pocket is unAmerican.
I cannot turn my back on the American solder, it is he who shields us.
I cannot turn my back on the American teacher, it is he who informs us.
I cannot turn my back on the American firefighter/EMT, it is he who helps us.
I cannot turn my back on the American policeman, it is he who protects us.
No, I must pay my taxes, as I cannot turn my back on this nation to do so would be unAmerican.
However, should you chose to, more power to you - but remember that while you turn your back on the nation, should you come to a time of need, the nation will not do the same.

Great POTW win...^^

Neighbors A and B live next door to one another in a relatively nice neighborhood. Neighbor A gets injured at work, is off and experiences a cut in pay as a result. He has to therefore cut his expenses and one of the expenses on the chopping block is his water bill. Both neighbors have great lawns.

Neighbor A is forced to watch is lawn deteriorate over the course of time. Neighbor B waters his own lawn daily but doesn't think nor care to spend his water helping to keep neighbor A's lawn beautiful.

Neighbor A's home becomes less attractive because of the deteriorating lawn. Neighbor B is indifferent.

As a consequence of neighbor A's eyesore lawn...property devalues for neighbor A, neighbor B and the rest of the neighborhood...but neighbor B is as content as a pig in mud that he didn't waste a single dime on neighbor A's stupid lawn.:o

Quick! Which one is the GOPer?

Some extra revenue from the rich, spending cuts combined with the fact that we're winding down our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, should help ease the pressure on the U.S. budget. God willing ....

You sound like Obama.:2 cents:

 

[Rey C.]

Depends on what the goal of cuts or hikes are.

^^^This!

Even Arthur Laffer has been forced to (grudgingly) admit that miniscule tax cuts (like those instituted by W. Bush) don't contribute to growth as much as they just add to the deficit. Combined with his unnecessary war in Iraq and various unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, etc.), all Bush did was cut taxes just enough to not to grow our economy, only sink us farther into debt... like a handjob with no "happy ending". Pretty much sums up his Presidency, IMO: a handjob with no happy ending! In fact, he kind of punched us all in the balls and then ran out of the room back to Texas. By the same token, a relatively small tax hike, whether by rates or just eliminating certain breaks and credits, would not have a real negative affect on growth, but it would increase government revenues. Combined with spending cuts, that increase in government revenues would at least put us on the road to curing our deficit and debt woes. This is the approach I am in favor of, and other (relatively) sane people also seem to favor this approach as well.

But we now have a group of people who have signed on with a strange, shadowy character by the name of Grover Norquist, and he will be the Jim Jones for this entire nation, unless rational, right thinking people start standing up and speaking out! Those who have pledged to follow Norquist into the jungle and drink his lethal blend of kool-aid MUST be sent packing. We need fewer ideologues, not more!!!

Something else about this Grover Norquist that I find rather interesting/confusing is the paradox of him "holding hands" with the likes of Michele Bachmann and other anti-gay, social conservatives, yet at the same time joining the advisory council of the homosexual advocacy group, GOProud. Perhaps Michele's hubby, Sweet Marcus, will counsel ol' Grover about the evils of pillow biting and pickle kissing... probably in a cheap Crystal City motel room out on
Route 1.

These people have serious, serious mental issues! DO NOT LET THEM ANYWHERE NEAR THE SEAT OF POWER IN THIS GREAT REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!