Investment vs Tax Cuts

[1300 Class]

Well, since we have a new political forum, shall we not discuss in a proper fashion the old arguement of Investment (in say, Education, Health and Infrastructure) vs. Tax Cuts (say a few dollars a week).

I would rather see investment, than a few measly tax dollars back, that do nothing, and are lost in inflation and the riding standard of living. Any thoughts?

[Seth Warren]

Investment (once again in my perfect imaginary nation).

[NYEmtEsq]

Whose to say that the two are mutually exclusive? There are those of us who view a tax cut as a way for the individual to decide where to invest the money, instead of leaving that choice to a bunch of detached bureaucrats or vote-buying politicians.

[Fuzzy]

I don't think any of the advances in health, science, or education were done via taxes to the government. As I look around my room, everything I see was because of our capitalistic society.

If there's a new idea, there's money to be made exploiting that idea.

[Phalloidium]

I don't think any of the advances in health, science, or education were done via taxes to the government. As I look around my room, everything I see was because of our capitalistic society.

If there's a new idea, there's money to be made exploiting that idea.

You know that computer you typed your post on? Government money paid for the early research. And you know that Internet thing? Well, government money paid for that, too. Those are some of the most obvious examples.

Capitalism works on return on investment. The capitalist is usually looking to maximise money in the near to medium term future, which pretty much precludes investing in something without reasonably certain results. Most major advances in technology, etc., came from government sponsored research.

I am a capitalist at heart. I don't think the government should really be interfering in the economy. I don't believe in subsidies for farming, steel mills, or what-have-you, nor do I believe in fighting bogus wars to give your friends public monies. Should the government be investing? Absolutely. Things like infrastructures (roads, water, communications) speed up the economy, as does insuring the health of the people: healthy individuals are more productive.

[mango]

I vote for tax cuts....

... even in an inflationary economic environment.


:cool:

[Fyreflyintheskye]

You know that computer you typed your post on? Government money paid for the early research. And you know that Internet thing? Well, government money paid for that, too. Those are some of the most obvious examples.

Capitalism works on return on investment. The capitalist is usually looking to maximise money in the near to medium term future, which pretty much precludes investing in something without reasonably certain results. Most major advances in technology, etc., came from government sponsored research.

I am a capitalist at heart. I don't think the government should really be interfering in the economy. I don't believe in subsidies for farming, steel mills, or what-have-you, nor do I believe in fighting bogus wars to give your friends public monies. Should the government be investing? Absolutely. Things like infrastructures (roads, water, communications) speed up the economy, as does insuring the health of the people: healthy individuals are more productive.


U.S. money also gets invested into many of the debts of other countries, let us not forget (or "let us consider," as I see you're not actually from this country, so you may or may not be aware), either actively or by absolving them. That's on top of our own debt, which is, yeah... it's big. Whether that's good or bad is commensurate with your opinion of our foreign economic policy, I suppose. I'd rather not get into mine! At any rate, I think a tax cut would benefit us more right now because, right now, it seems like our dollars in the market as "gotta have it" consumers would just work harder. And, directly, I wish we'd quit claiming too few withholding allowances on our W4s; we're not banks or venture capitalists, we're people. Giving out interest-free loans to the government is not our job. If they want it, they come and get it, damn it.

[AZ_Wolf]

I vote for tax cuts....

... even in an inflationary economic environment.


:cool:

For singles making under $50,000 and couples over $80,000. But no permanent tax cuts for the super rich, estate taxes, etc. :mad:

[Zandoz]

Neither of the above.

There should be no intentional reduction of tax revenue without corresponding reduction in national debt....and absolutely not when we're currently operating at a deficit, and the teetering social security system is owed HUGE sums of money.

Any increase in any governmental department budgets (investments as described) should come from increased taxes on those most able to afford it, the top 20% income bracket. They control 80-90% of all income, wealth (savings, stocks, bonds, non primary residence real estate, etc), and business...they can afford it. The bottom 60% have already been working under net reductions in income, and can't afford it. Otherwise, it should be mandatory that any new programs not funded by taxes on those who can afford it, must be funded by bureaucratic streamlining and waste reduction in existing governmental spending.

[Ned Sonntag]

Whose to say that the two are mutually exclusive? There are those of us who view a tax cut as a way for the individual to decide where to invest the money, instead of leaving that choice to a bunch of detached bureaucrats or vote-buying politicians. Did you ever address the legality of using the EMT symbol as an avatar?:confused:

[Ned Sonntag]

Whose to say that the two are mutually exclusive? There are those of us who view a tax cut as a way for the individual to decide where to invest the money, instead of leaving that choice to a bunch of detached bureaucrats or vote-buying politicians. What's the investment return on bridges and firehouses? Then again if the stock market tanks totally, municipal bonds might become attractive...:batting:

[Risible]

Did you ever address the legality of using the EMT symbol as an avatar?:confused:


Hi Ned! Check out the date of NYEmt's post - this thread was resurrected from nearly two years ago! :eek:

[Ned Sonntag]

Hi Ned! Check out the date of NYEmt's post - this thread was resurrected from nearly two years ago! :eek: Goddess what a relief! I was having nightmares at 4am about being strapped in an ambulance gurney with an angry white man giving me a wallet-ectomy... and it wasn't giving me an urrection.:eek:

[Observer]

How many people stop to think about who our government turned to to purchase the over $100 billion (one report said $160 billion) in new debt being used to finance this tax rebate and economic stimulus package?

Two clues - one is a group that produces oil and the other is hosting the Olympics.

But at least we'll stave off the brunt of the inevitable recession until after the election.

Oh - and as for taxing the rich more simply because the "poor can't afford it" when, may I ask, is class envy and wealth redistribution enough?

Isn't the huge percentage of income taxes already being paid by the top 10% of the country big enough? Especially while the bottom 30% literally pay nothing and some of them get benefits unavailable to the middle and upperclass?

I don't really begrudge the working poor their Earned Income Credit benefits or welfare mothers their food stamps. Certainly the safety net of unemployment and various other benefits that we've developed since the depression makes us a better people. But the mantra that only the rich and middle class should bear the pain of correcting government excesses when cuts have to be made simply because the "poor can't afford it" is to me a bit unbalanced.

Perhaps if we had public disclosure and local approval of who gets benefits along with a need to justify salaries and benefit packages over a million dollars
a year we would have a better balance - but it needs to be done on both ends of the spectrum.

My personal opinion is that everyone should have to file a tax return for informational purposes showing their true income - including the value of non-taxable government-supplied benefits. No one gets any benefit without having filed their prior year return. Then have a per capita services tax of $3000 which can be offset by a volunterism credit of $10 per hour for approved donated services (jury duty, charitable groups, service clubs, schools, etc) to their community.

Idealistic? I know - but it would change our society for the better.

[Zandoz]

Oh - and as for taxing the rich more simply because the "poor can't afford it" when, may I ask, is class envy and wealth redistribution enough?

When the the wealth is redistributed in a more equitable manner, instead of the current ongoing trend of redistribution from the bottom to the top.

A 2004 poll of 1,000 economists showed that the majority of economists favor "redistribution." A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing. - Alan Greenspan, June 2005

Isn't the huge percentage of income taxes already being paid by the top 10% of the country big enough? Especially while the bottom 30% literally pay nothing and some of them get benefits unavailable to the middle and upperclass?

No, it's not enough. Isn't their controlling 80% plus of EVERYTHING enough? Apparently not...it's 80% plus and growing...it has been growing for over 25 years.

The "benefits" given those on the bottom no tax bracket is the equivalent of small change to these people. They could afford to double the wealth of every single person in the rest of the population, and still control 60% of everything.

Until 1982, the the tax bracket for those at the top was around 70%...and they were not really hurting by any means. In the 25 years since, their tax rate has been halved, while the wealth inequity has continued to rise to the highest level since the great depression...and our national debt has skyrocketed to all time highs. The correlations are not hard to see.


I don't really begrudge the working poor their Earned Income Credit benefits or welfare mothers their food stamps. Certainly the safety net of unemployment and various other benefits that we've developed since the depression makes us a better people. But the mantra that only the rich and middle class should bear the pain of correcting government excesses when cuts have to be made simply because the "poor can't afford it" is to me a bit unbalanced.

Perhaps if we had public disclosure and local approval of who gets benefits along with a need to justify salaries and benefit packages over a million dollars
a year we would have a better balance - but it needs to be done on both ends of the spectrum.

My personal opinion is that everyone should have to file a tax return for informational purposes showing their true income - including the value of non-taxable government-supplied benefits. No one gets any benefit without having filed their prior year return. Then have a per capita services tax of $3000 which can be offset by a volunterism credit of $10 per hour for approved donated services (jury duty, charitable groups, service clubs, schools, etc) to their community.

Idealistic? I know - but it would change our society for the better.


Hows this for idealistic? I propose just the opposite. A mandatory balanced budget, with no reduction in social services, adding full health care, and discontinuing all income tax hassles...reporting or paying...for the bottom 60% of the people in this country. The entire tax burden shifted to those in the top 40%, in the form of a progressive tax where the higher the income is above the national median, the higher the tax rate. You would see two great things happen immediatly...a quickly escalating median income, and the politicians already bought and paid for by those in that top 40% bracket slashing governmental waste like crazy.

[1300 Class]

We got rid of the "death tax" here [in Queensland] during the 1980s. It spurred an economic boom. :)