Somebody FREAKIN shoot me!!!!

[bdahlg68]

Saw or heard something that described the return on stimulus vs. return on tax cuts...... basically showed stimulus had a higher return even though it would cause an "entitlement" society. Has anyone else heard or seen an article like this??? Trying to find it....

[GrabberGT]

Originally Posted by bdahlg68

Saw or heard something that described the return on stimulus vs. return on tax cuts...... basically showed stimulus had a higher return even though it would cause an "entitlement" society. Has anyone else heard or seen an article like this??? Trying to find it....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/20...SQP/story.html

[57hemicuda]

Here in lies the problem, the Bain Capital boogie man, the Halliburton boogie man, what villain company are we going to look for next, it really discounts any arguement in my opinion. If the feds and state governments were to make this place more buisness freindly, maybe all these companies wouldn't look elsewhere. The first canidate that says he will give companies 100% tax breaks for anyone who manufactures in the states, foreign or domestic, will get my vote. The extra employment leading to income taxes, and removing people from welfare roles, I beleive would more then cover the corporate taxes lost.

The class envy thing is only going to work for so long, once the dept overwhelms us, all treasure will be gone anyway.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by bdahlg68

Saw or heard something that described the return on stimulus vs. return on tax cuts...... basically showed stimulus had a higher return even though it would cause an "entitlement" society. Has anyone else heard or seen an article like this??? Trying to find it....

I think the return on stimulus would be better simply because it's more direct. If you remember the original bush era stimulus where we all got checks in the mail the explicit goal was that you go out and spend that money. The last stimulus was slightly more abstract in that it was the government basically spending it, but with the same idea, that money in = jobs out, which in turn of course the government taxes their incomes netting some return.

The funny part about tax cuts to me, along with the discussion here about luxury boats is that rich people as a group aren't rich because they are buying boats all the time or really, spending all their money. Buying boats and ferraris in bulk is how rich people become poor people (see: Professional Athletes).

If you give me a tax cut, there certainly is a chance that I'd spend it, but there's a near equal chance that I'll do something that has 0 economic affect like putting it into my savings account. If I made twice as much, that wouldn't change and I can't imagine Greg for example getting a tax cut and then going and blowing it on stuff. On an absolute basis rich people spend more than poor people, but as a percentage, I'm going to say that poor people spend more, out of necessity or in some cases out of stupidity (aka, that's why they are poor).

That isn't me saying take from the rich savers to give to the poor spenders, but just saying that a 1$ tax cut for people even moderately successful people, is probably less in terms of trickle down than some people want to believe.

[WSSix]

Originally Posted by realcoray

If you give me a tax cut, there certainly is a chance that I'd spend it, but there's a near equal chance that I'll do something that has 0 economic affect like putting it into my savings account.

That comment right there shows your lack of understanding of how the economy in this country works. Putting money into a savings account is not letting it sit idle. It has a huge affect on the economy. There is not a vault in a bank with your cash in it just waiting for you to come take it out. It's being used for investments and loans. It is generating wealth for people.

You should read more on Austrian Economic principles, mises.org is a good start, and read more on Hayeck. It will better explain how and why capitalism works with history and facts unlike those extremely intelligent and perfect academic theories that just never seem to work for some reason proposed by Keynsians. That last part is me being sarcastic again. Sorry, but I am not going to listen or follow anyone's theories when one of them is that it would help the economy if the government buried money and then paid someone to dig it up. That's stupid. That's Keynes for you.

We need Andrew in this thread.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by WSSix

That comment right there shows your lack of understanding of how the economy in this country works. Putting money into a savings account is not letting it sit idle. It has a huge affect on the economy. There is not a vault in a bank with your cash in it just waiting for you to come take it out. It's being used for investments and loans. It is generating wealth for people.

Certainly. Outside of burying money in my yard, anything I do with it benefits the economy to some degree.

Take a step back though from questioning my intelligence and consider what was going on in 2008. Consumers, aka people buying things, slowed down buying things. Rich consumers, poor consumers, everyone was freaked out and started saving more and spending less.

My company saw it, our customers are not poor people, they are businesses and they stopped spending money. I presume they were saving money where they could but the reality of them not spending money is that other businesses slowed, and had to slow their spending or start to lay people off

Consumer spending dropped, and the saving rate skyrocketed, and yet the economy kept falling. You could argue that banks weren't lending that extra money being saved and that is certainly true, but at my company business dropped and people don't take out loans to buy our products, so the banks had zero impact in terms of us having a bad year.

Any honest person with a business saw demand drop, and many businesses closed as a result. Certainly some places got jammed up because some banks didn't loan, and their customers used loans to buy their products, but in general? It was because everyone started saving money.

[WSSix]

Originally Posted by realcoray

That isn't me saying take from the rich savers to give to the poor spenders, but just saying that a 1$ tax cut for people even moderately successful people, is probably less in terms of trickle down than some people want to believe.

You are correct in terms of math with your example. A few dollars won't matter even though we are talking a lot more than a few dollars in the real world. However, psychological effects must be considered as well. That's why when tax rates are lowered, tax revenue goes up and stays up. It's not just the $1 that the rich are getting to save that makes the revenue go up. It's the feeling that they aren't being punished that matters.

If you're in the top tax bracket in this country, you're being tax almost 50% of your income by state and federal. The majority is federal. You have to make arguments and provide proof to keep more than that. Personally, that's a huge downer to me. Especially, when you go to the grocery store and the person in front of you buy food on food stamps and then hops into a car that costs more than the one you own. The number one vehicle of millionaires for a number of years was the F150. The Honda Civic was on the list too.

Couple that with the fact that nearly 50% of the people in this country who work pay no Federal income taxes. None not one red cent! That's people who make up to nearly 50k a year that supposedly can not even pay $100 to the funding of this government. That's just over $8 per month or 27 cents per day that they can't be burdened to pay. Yet, we are told the rich need to pay their fair share? Huge psychological downer on those of us that work very hard for our money.

Not all of the spending government does is justifiable and necessary. The majority of people, including those supposedly crazy Tea Partiers, are not trying to stop government spending. People just want it under control. Is it too much to ask that duplicate programs or programs that don't work be reformed and have their costs amended?

Also, keep in mind government employees do not pay taxes. As more of the work force becomes government employed, the burden of paying them fails on private sector companies. A private sector that also has to pay its own employees and supply them with benefits in many cases while keeping costs low enough to compete against other countries that have lower standards of living, where employees are paid less, and where corporate income taxes are less. We have the highest corporate income taxes in the world.

[GregWeld]

I think the tax issue is one of personal perspective. Most people look at their neighbor and think "they" must be rich or have a better job - etc. People tend to think everyone is better off than they are.

Here's my TAX perspective.

I'm the 1% guy that everyone hates... Too bad. In 2011 I bought almost a million dollars worth of cars - In Washington I pay 9.9% sales tax on those purchases. That's 100K to the state just in car tax alone.... forget the license fees etc.

I just bought a big truck - I paid 24K in FEDERAL excise tax and 20K in state tax - plus license fees.

This is the problem that people don't understand.... people spending money... is what makes an "economy"..... People NOT spending money creates a recession. If there is a recession... I will still live GREAT! But I might not spend as much money because I just don't have to, and or, I just don't feel like it. Who does that affect? It affects how much sales tax I pay -- it affects all the people that MIGHT have made money off me - thru commissions... profits... etc.

I don't mind paying taxes at all... I pay HUGE taxes (dollar wise).... I don't mind it. What I mind is people paying nothing - then bitching that their lives aren't good enough... that it's someone else's fault that their lives suck... and that the "government" should do more for them.

2/3rds of the Federal budget is now SOCIAL PROGRAMS.... it used to be 1/3rd of the budget. I would like to see that reversed so that we can get back to spending money on building and maintaining roads - improve our education system - national defense etc. In other words - I'd be HAPPY if I thought Obama was going to increase my taxes to build stuff - create stuff - etc. But his agenda is to take from me - and spend even more on "social programs". We have so many of them now we can't afford to pay our bills. I think that is what half the country is fed up with. The other half (according to the popular vote) seem to have their hands out...

[Flash68]

Greg, you're a lot smarter than you look.

Could not agree more with you. Pay the minimum legal taxes you can (call it creative, calling it using the tax code, whatever) and use the savings to consume and invest and stimulate!

[GregWeld]

.... And I don't mind people being on welfare etc... or getting unemployment..


What I DO care about is that someone isn't LOOKING for a job - of any kind...

Being out of work - or being out of/down on your luck... I'm okay with that... but you'd better be trying to do something to change that. 'Cause sitting around doing nothing is what I get pissed about.

Personally - I'd like to see us return to a more WPA style program. If you're getting a "pay check" -- then you are "on the payroll" -- either the state or the county or the fed is sending you a check and taking care of your needs. IF that is the case --- then you need to "DO SOMETHING" for that check. You need to mow grass or rake leaves - or sweep streets - clean graffiti off - paint a government building - help the cooks at the public schools..... SOMETHING. If you're incapable - incapacitated - "slow" - etc.... then you should probably get more because we need to take care of those that can't take care of themselves. I'm totally for that. But if you can get out of bed in the morning... and walk and talk... then we have plenty of work that needs to be done. Doesn't have to be hard work - there's plenty of "hands"... but ya gotta do something.