It's The Economy, Stupid - He Got The Message

[Salome]

Salome,

Most economist agree that tax cuts are a good idea when the economy is in recession.

I don't have a problem with tax cuts when they are needed
and I do understand why they usually have a short term positive effect on the economy

but I didn't think that the tax cut issue in the US was only recession related

correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm really don't spend as much time checking the news as I should, but didn't tax cuts play a major part in Bush his campaign to become president?

if I'm not mistaken the US weren't in a recession back then
and still tax cuts were presented as some sort of holy grail for the US economy

while tax cuts really offer nothing more than short term relief even in the most positive scenario
and I don't believe many economists really think otherwise

The Netherlands spends very little comparitively on its Military and benefits from the USA's larger military and ability to intervene in key area's of the world, vital to the health of the global economy.

indeed we do
the point is though that I pay about about 40% on income taxes alone (if my income would be higher it would go up to 50%)
if the US government would focus less on tax cuts for short term success and election purposes (because it does sound nice to keep more money in your wallet) then perhaps they would be able to spend as much as they want on the US military and still would be able to provide a higher standard of living for the avarage citizen

Take a look at a country where the Government controlled everything (Soviet Union, former East Bloc) and one can see that the bigger the role the government plays in the economy, the less efficient it is. China continues to privatize its industries and move the Government out of its economy. The results speak for themselves.

that's why I said that I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated
government decisions, including tax cuts, do not lead the economy on it's way

 

[STING2]

I don't have a problem with tax cuts when they are needed
and I do understand why they usually have a short term positive effect on the economy

but I didn't think that the tax cut issue in the US was only recession related

correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm really don't spend as much time checking the news as I should, but didn't tax cuts play a major part in Bush his campaign to become president?

if I'm not mistaken the US weren't in a recession back then
and still tax cuts were presented as some sort of holy grail for the US economy

while tax cuts really offer nothing more than short term relief even in the most positive scenario
and I don't believe many economists really think otherwise

It is true that there are those in the USA, mainly on the Republican side who believe tax cuts are simply a matter of principle. I disagree with that and believe that its a matter of what is necessary strictly from an economic point of view. I was opposed to Bush's tax cuts when he was running for President because the economy was red hot and all the tax cuts would have done was created inflation.

Most economist don't view tax cuts in terms of short term or long term benefit. Its simply a question of getting the economy to expand during downturns or recessions. Expansionary policy is the answer to economic downturn and recession. Had I answered that question differently in my Economics 101 class, it would have been marked wrong.

i

ndeed we do
the point is though that I pay about about 40% on income taxes alone (if my income would be higher it would go up to 50%)
if the US government would focus less on tax cuts for short term success and election purposes (because it does sound nice to keep more money in your wallet) then perhaps they would be able to spend as much as they want on the US military and still would be able to provide a higher standard of living for the avarage citizen

The reason the USA has one of the highest standards of living in the world is that it creates and environment that allows its citizens to achieve a high standard of living rather than have the government do much of that for them.

The best way for the government to actually increase its tax revenue is NOT through raising taxes, its through economic growth. The reason the US government has massive surpluses in the late 1990s was because of huge economic growth. The more money individuals make from economic expansion, the more money the government recieves. While the US tax rates are lower than the Netherlands, the amount of money Per Capita that the US government takes in each year from taxes is higher than the Netherlands.

Lower taxes allow for greater economic growth, which actually brings more money into the government than a higher tax rate would. Its a question of balance of course. Continued tax cuts and drops in tax rates, taken to an unusual extreme, would of course eventually lose their effect and would be to small to support the needed services of the government. The tax rate which allows for full employment and maximum economic performance will in the long wrong bring in far more money to the government than high tax rate which will obviously bring in lots of revenue for the government in the short term. As economic performance declines under a high tax rate, so will the revenue that comes into the government. The issue is achieving full employment and maximum economic performance. The tax rate that best supports achieving those objectives is also the tax rate that will in the long run bring in the most money to the government.

that's why I said that I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated
government decisions, including tax cuts, do not lead the economy on it's way

Thats not true. China's economy is expanding because the government has reduced taxes and privatized its industries there by reducing the Governments role in the overall economy. Cutting taxes is a way of reducing the governments role in the economy. You have the Soviet system where the government controlled everything compared to the US system where the governments role in the economy is much reduced. Still, when the Government is taking 30 or 40% of the countries income in taxes, it still has a signifcant effect on what happens in the economy, which is why tax cuts can lead an economy on its way as has been proven and shown by economist.

 

[Salome]

I have no idea about the situation in China,
but my best bet would be that they reduced corporate taxes

and that will definately help your economy

but not (/ at a far lesser extend if any) the standard of living

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Actually, there is something to this statement. Most millionaires are not people born into money, or people who graduated at the top of their classes. They are people who have the will and the drive to get it done.

ohhh ohhhh ohhhh i have an idea!!! let's take a larger percentage of money away from the people who worked their asses off to get... better yet... let's have complete revenue sharing... everyone gets an equal share, completely throwing out rewards for those who work harder...

 

[STING2]

Salome,

"and that will definately help your economy"

"but not (/ at a far lesser extend if any) the standard of living"

The two things, economy and standard of living, are intertwined.

 

[melon]

ohhh ohhhh ohhhh i have an idea!!! let's take a larger percentage of money away from the people who worked their asses off to get... better yet... let's have complete revenue sharing... everyone gets an equal share, completely throwing out rewards for those who work harder...

Hysterics aside, we have to pay for our government somehow, and putting the burden on poorer people is illogical.

Melon

 

[Salome]

Salome,

"and that will definately help your economy"

"but not (/ at a far lesser extend if any) the standard of living"

The two things, economy and standard of living, are intertwined.

when corporations get tax cuts they will make more profit and thus your economic figures will improve

corporate tax cuts do not necesarely lead to increase in salaries (if only because corporate decisions depend a lot on what the competition does)
and they do not equal lowering the prizes for consumers

so the only ones who are guaranteed a higher standard of living are higher management and stock holders


you'll have to wait for unemployment figures to go down until the entire country will profit from the economical benefits
but not even a good economy will help people with the wrong/not enough education, people who have a handicap, single parents etc. to get a job


and in an increasingly global economy chances that companies will turn to overseas lower wage countries instead isn't unimaginable

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

how about putting an equal burden on all people, and not penalizing those who have made something of their lifes by taking a larger percentage from them just because they have more? i mean after all... all men are created equal, right? so shouldn't they be taxed an equal percentage? god forbid

 

[anitram]

how about putting an equal burden on all people, and not penalizing those who have made something of their lifes by taking a larger percentage from them just because they have more? i mean after all... all men are created equal, right? so shouldn't they be taxed an equal percentage? god forbid

What's wrong with noblesse oblige?

 

[Salome]

how about putting an equal burden on all people, and not penalizing those who have made something of their lifes by taking a larger percentage from them just because they have more?

if I was born blind or with a heart condition I wouldn't want to run into you so you could tell me I didn't make something of my life

 

[STING2]

Salome,

It true corperations themselves might not increase salary's for workers or lower prices for consumers when the economy does well. In fact, prices will rise as the economy does well. But one thing a coperation may do is "Expand". Any expansion will require new workers. This creates the possibility that those that were unemployed may find employment. Another thing is that in order to keep current employ's in a strong economy, employers will often have to pay them more to prevent them from switching to other companies that might offer competitive pay and benefits. As the economy improves, the unemployment rate eventually starts to drop. When this happens, workers gain the upperhand over employers and its the employers who scramble and compete to hire workers.

In 1999 and 2000, there was a severe shortage of labor in the USA which put a lot of pressure on employers and wages rose as employers competed to get the remaining workers in the job market.

A strong economy helps everyone. Business can afford and often have to provide workers with good health benefits or else risk losing workers to other companies.

It is true that many companies who are able to may switch to lower wage overseas employment. But this can eventually benefit the host country as people in the new country become employed and gain the ability to purchase products from the host country which in turn boost economy activity and business expansion requiring more workers.

 

[Rono]

It is true that many companies who are able to may switch to lower wage overseas employment. But this can eventually benefit the host country as people in the new country become employed and gain the ability to purchase products from the host country which in turn boost economy activity and business expansion requiring more workers.

I do not believe this,..if the wages get higher a couple of cents the companies wil move to a cheaper country. Leaving a lot of people unemploid and ( in most cases ) poisend and destroid land behind. And beside this , it is slavery when those workers can even pay thier daily cost of living from the wages they get.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if I was born blind or with a heart condition I wouldn't want to run into you so you could tell me I didn't make something of my life

please fill me in... what exactly does being blind or having a heart condition have to do with this? blind people and people with heart problems can't be successful and self made? news to me...

if i make $30,000, and they take, say, 10%... that's $3,000 they're taking from me. if i make 3 million, and they take the same 10%, they're taking $300,000 from me. i'm still giving more money than those who are less fortunate than i, but i'm not giving at a higher rate. how is that unfair?

 

[anitram]

if i make $30,000, and they take, say, 10%... that's $3,000 they're taking from me. if i make 3 million, and they take the same 10%, they're taking $300,000 from me. i'm still giving more money than those who are less fortunate than i, but i'm not giving at a higher rate. how is that unfair?

You can afford to give twice as much and still have a standard of living that is extraordinarily high and pampered (remember those living on $1/day). The other person cannot afford to give $6K and still live reasonably, paying a mortgage/rent and supporting their kids on a salary of $22K/year. If you think they can, then what's wrong with you paying 2,978,000 worth of tax?

It is simple. You've got millions, you can afford to pay up and still live more than comfortably. The bottom 90% can't do that. The measure of society is how it treats its weakest members, not the strongest few.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

take from the rich and give to the poor... how very robin hood of you.

i think bill gates should pay my car payments. i mean afterall... he can afford to do so and still have a standard of living that is extraordinarily high and pampered. it's only fair that he give up that money that he earned and give it to me.

sarcasim noted

 

[Salome]

please fill me in... what exactly does being blind or having a heart condition have to do with this? blind people and people with heart problems can't be successful and self made? news to me...

ok, I'll fill you in
when you have a heart condition you "might" have a problem getting a job because employees are a bit hesitant hiring someone who is more likely to be sick a lot

one can still have a succesful career despite a handicap
but the percentage of handicapped people being able to achieve this is much lower than people who dont have this disadvantage

if i make $30,000, and they take, say, 10%... that's $3,000 they're taking from me. if i make 3 million, and they take the same 10%, they're taking $300,000 from me. i'm still giving more money than those who are less fortunate than i, but i'm not giving at a higher rate. how is that unfair?

well, that isn't unfair
it also isn't unfair to ask from those who have a lot more to give relatively more back to society than those who don't have much to begin with

 

[STING2]

Its important to remember that while most people making 500,000 dollars or 5 million dollars a year did so through hard work, its also important to remember that making that much money in the USA would be impossible if the USA was unable to defend itself and had not worked together as a society over several centuries to create an environment that made it possible for a person to make 5 million dollars in one year.

The rich indeed should be paying more in taxes than they currently do because because it is the environment that government and society created that gave them the opportunity to amass such wealth in the first place.

It is important that those that make less than 100,000 a year not be over taxed because they represent the majority of consumers and have a far greater impact on national economic performance through their consumption than those that make more than 100,000 a year or 200,000 a year.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

oh yeah rich people work so much harder than the poor and working class, that's why they have more money . Nothing to do with the opportunities they had in life, the poor just need to get off their lazy asses!

 

[nbcrusader]

It's Even Better Than Expected!!!

The third quarter numbers have been revised - upward by a full percentage point.

GDP Roars Along at 8.2% Rate

WASHINGTON ? The economy roared ahead at an astounding 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in nearly two decades and a much stronger performance than previously thought. It raises hope that a long spell of lackluster business activity is finally over.

The revised gross domestic product (GDP), released by the Commerce Department today, was a full percentage point higher than the 7.2 percent growth rate estimated a month ago.

 

[diamond]

a face from the left

 

[diamond]

that is one sexy mofo..
and just think..
8.2 is not his shoe size...
its about the HUGE GROWTH of the economy..

hoo
hah



DB9

 

[STING2]

If the economy keeps rocking with numbers like the 3rd Q, the election of 2004 will look more like 1984 than 2000.