Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Dec '12 15:16
    Which would stimulate the economy more?

    Continued tax cuts for the rich so they can invest more money or letting the Bush tax cuts expire and using the money from higher taxes to invest in infrastructure construction?
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    01 Dec '12 16:04
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Which would stimulate the economy more?

    Continued tax cuts for the rich so they can invest more money or letting the Bush tax cuts expire and using the money from higher taxes to invest in infrastructure construction?
    All else being equal, the less a society's disparity of wealth is, the more robust that society will be. Conversely, the greater a society's disparity of wealth, the more unhealthy that society will be.
  3. 01 Dec '12 16:38
    Originally posted by rwingett
    All else being equal, the less a society's disparity of wealth is, the more robust that society will be. Conversely, the greater a society's disparity of wealth, the more unhealthy that society will be.
    Although I generally agree with you, it does not answer my question. Which one will stimulate the economy more? Which one will create more jobs?
  4. 01 Dec '12 17:32
    Stimulating the economy is not the same as creating jobs. Obviously you would create most jobs by having the government create lots of low-paid jobs.
  5. 01 Dec '12 17:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Stimulating the economy is not the same as creating jobs. Obviously you would create most jobs by having the government create lots of low-paid jobs.
    Yep, then people can pretend to work just as the government pretends to pay them. They tried that already in Eastern Europe and you can still see the results today!
  6. 01 Dec '12 17:48
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yep, then people can pretend to work just as the government pretends to pay them. They tried that already in Eastern Europe and you can still see the results today!
    Well, that was my point. If the government's going to create jobs, they better be useful ones.
  7. 01 Dec '12 17:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, that was my point. If the government's going to create jobs, they better be useful ones.
    By useful I suppose you mean pay enough money that people will be able to live the life they feel comfortable living.
  8. 01 Dec '12 17:52
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yep, then people can pretend to work just as the government pretends to pay them. They tried that already in Eastern Europe and you can still see the results today!
    Its better than the rich not even pretending to work, but simply living off tax cuts.
  9. 01 Dec '12 17:54
    Originally posted by Eladar
    By useful I suppose you mean pay enough money that people will be able to live the life they feel comfortable living.
    Well no, by useful I mean the work serves some useful purpose.
  10. 01 Dec '12 19:13 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Which would stimulate the economy more?

    Continued tax cuts for the rich so they can invest more money or letting the Bush tax cuts expire and using the money from higher taxes to invest in infrastructure construction?
    Choose this option ----> Letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2% so that the rate on incremental income goes from very low to low, and use the revenue to invest in infrastructure. (Yet, wxtend the cuts on the first $250,000 for everybody. 98% of people and 97% of small business make less $250,000, but note again everyone and every entity gets tax cut extension on the first $250,000. This stimulates growth in the US consumer-based economy.)

    Again, don't extend Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000. The rich are hoarding cash or spending on high-end consumer items many from overseas. Buying a $20,000 Persian rug from Iran or $5000 Italian shoes or purse doesn't do much for the US. Nevertheless, whatever the dynamics, the CBO noted in a study recently that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% would not spur additional investment or improve the economy generally.
  11. 01 Dec '12 19:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Stimulating the economy is not the same as creating jobs. Obviously you would create most jobs by having the government create lots of low-paid jobs.
    Can the economy be stimulated without creating jobs? Even if it can I tend to think they go hand in hand regardless of which takes place first.
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    01 Dec '12 19:41
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Although I generally agree with you, it does not answer my question. Which one will stimulate the economy more? Which one will create more jobs?
    I should think from my post you'd be able to figure out which one I was endorsing.
  13. 01 Dec '12 19:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well no, by useful I mean the work serves some useful purpose.
    You don't think that in Eastern Europe the government gave jobs to people that served a useful purpose?
  14. 01 Dec '12 19:44
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Can the economy be stimulated without creating jobs? Even if it can I tend to think they go hand in hand regardless of which takes place first.
    You are confusing boom-bust-cycles with the general state of the economy. Chinese unemployment is at 4%, but clearly the US economy is much stronger than the Chinese one.
  15. 01 Dec '12 19:52
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Which would stimulate the economy more?

    Continued tax cuts for the rich so they can invest more money or letting the Bush tax cuts expire and using the money from higher taxes to invest in infrastructure construction?
    You do realize that in either alternative, you are talking about the same money. What would give you confidence that the money would be used more effectively by government, than by the people who earned it?