3 ms·

too little too late mister president. I agree with winterspeak in that what we need is severely reduced payroll taxes to stimulate aggregate demand.

natrius 17y ago
I think pretty much everyone who has thought seriously about things agrees with you, but how can they get political support for raising other taxes to at least offset the loss in revenue, and preferably help with the ridiculous deficits we'll be running for a while?
- dantheman 17y ago
  By not raising other taxes and cutting the massive government spending.
  - natrius 17y ago
    In the interest of not straying too far off topic, I'm going to leave this one alone.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    to be fair. this has no precedent in the 20th century.
ibsulon 17y ago
This makes no sense to me, even when I've seen it before. I'm the classic saver. I'm the individual who they want to spend more right now. I'm saving because it's not a certainty that my contract will be renewed right now. I could very well end up living off the savings I'm accumulating right now. If you reduce my payroll tax, I won't spend more. I'll save more. ___ If someone is unemployed, reducing the payroll tax is not going to change anything. If someone is insecurely employed, they aren't going to change their spending habits, they will change their savings habits. There is no gain. That's most everyone right now! Further, why is it going to help for me to buy more Saudi, Mexican, and Venezuelan gas, or buy more Chinese goods? It seems to me that providing a sales tax break for goods and services originated in the United States would provide a much better economic lift. (I don't know if this would be legal, however.)
- noss 17y ago
  A sales tax break for goods originating from US is, in all ways, a trade barrier. You can expect global mutual treatment. That means decreased foreign demand for US products. So you end up sponsoring US companies that were not capable to compete with more efficient foreign companies. Which is in itself a more interesting problem. Most European countries have as high, or higher, standard in working conditions (and TAXES!) and they do have positive trade balance. Does it really seem like a wise decision to make US produced products less attractive on the global market, for the hope that tax cuts on domestic products will match up, and then some, with increased income tax from the new jobs? An alternative is to instead use taxes to set up better public transport, so the time-and-cost-to-get-to-work radius around companies increase. Making it both easier to find the right competence (larger area, more people to chose from) and making more real estate close (time-wise) to the city, making the cost of living lower.
  - ibsulon 17y ago
    I agree with all these points, but the point I had been trying to make is that increasing spending in the face of a trade deficit means that we are doing more to spur China's economy than our own. I'm not sure that the public transport makes a difference with our car culture and low population densities. I can't really think of a good way to do a subway in LA, for example, though they tried.
- steveplace 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift Also, I'm a big fan of a revenue neutral tax shift from payroll to energy/carbon.
- sethg 17y ago
  People further down the income scale are going to save less of their marginal income. If someone is working but for so little money that they're constantly thinking "this week, should I buy food, or try to catch up with the rent?", and their take-home pay suddenly goes up by $20 a week, they are not likely to put that $20 in a savings account.
- 17y ago
ensignavenger 17y ago
Personally, I am a fan of the FairTax- it fits much better with a free Republic, as illustrated by many of the Founders(Like Thomas Jefferson) who greatly favored a consumption tax.

natrius 17y ago

I think pretty much everyone who has thought seriously about things agrees with you, but how can they get political support for raising other taxes to at least offset the loss in revenue, and preferably help with the ridiculous deficits we'll be running for a while?

dantheman 17y ago
By not raising other taxes and cutting the massive government spending.
- natrius 17y ago
  In the interest of not straying too far off topic, I'm going to leave this one alone.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  to be fair. this has no precedent in the 20th century.

ibsulon 17y ago

This makes no sense to me, even when I've seen it before. I'm the classic saver. I'm the individual who they want to spend more right now. I'm saving because it's not a certainty that my contract will be renewed right now. I could very well end up living off the savings I'm accumulating right now. If you reduce my payroll tax, I won't spend more. I'll save more. ___ If someone is unemployed, reducing the payroll tax is not going to change anything. If someone is insecurely employed, they aren't going to change their spending habits, they will change their savings habits. There is no gain. That's most everyone right now! Further, why is it going to help for me to buy more Saudi, Mexican, and Venezuelan gas, or buy more Chinese goods? It seems to me that providing a sales tax break for goods and services originated in the United States would provide a much better economic lift. (I don't know if this would be legal, however.)

noss 17y ago
A sales tax break for goods originating from US is, in all ways, a trade barrier. You can expect global mutual treatment. That means decreased foreign demand for US products. So you end up sponsoring US companies that were not capable to compete with more efficient foreign companies. Which is in itself a more interesting problem. Most European countries have as high, or higher, standard in working conditions (and TAXES!) and they do have positive trade balance. Does it really seem like a wise decision to make US produced products less attractive on the global market, for the hope that tax cuts on domestic products will match up, and then some, with increased income tax from the new jobs? An alternative is to instead use taxes to set up better public transport, so the time-and-cost-to-get-to-work radius around companies increase. Making it both easier to find the right competence (larger area, more people to chose from) and making more real estate close (time-wise) to the city, making the cost of living lower.
- ibsulon 17y ago
  I agree with all these points, but the point I had been trying to make is that increasing spending in the face of a trade deficit means that we are doing more to spur China's economy than our own. I'm not sure that the public transport makes a difference with our car culture and low population densities. I can't really think of a good way to do a subway in LA, for example, though they tried.
steveplace 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift Also, I'm a big fan of a revenue neutral tax shift from payroll to energy/carbon.
sethg 17y ago
People further down the income scale are going to save less of their marginal income. If someone is working but for so little money that they're constantly thinking "this week, should I buy food, or try to catch up with the rent?", and their take-home pay suddenly goes up by $20 a week, they are not likely to put that $20 in a savings account.
17y ago

ensignavenger 17y ago

Personally, I am a fan of the FairTax- it fits much better with a free Republic, as illustrated by many of the Founders(Like Thomas Jefferson) who greatly favored a consumption tax.