3 edits
Well, if your goal is to balance the budget AND stimulate the economy, then taxing the wealthiest 5% and giving tax breaks to the rest makes complete sense. The money that is saved by tax breaks for the middle and lower classes goes right back into the economy in the form of purchases for clothes, food, gas and all of the other necessities of life.
The argument that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans stimulates the economy by creating jobs has not been backed up by any facts. In fact, since the Bush tax cuts were put in place we have had 0% job increase. The aughts were the first decade since the 1930s to have that distinction. The theory is nice. The practice is not so nice. However, letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, so not actually taxing them more than they are supposed to be paying, but taxing them what they were before, will go along way towards balancing the budget. Obviously, it won't be the only thing needed to balance the budget, but it will certainly help.
2 edits
Originally posted by CliffLandinBut I thought that unemployment benefits "stimulate" the economy as well as does Obamacare and social security. Why then is taxing it and "giving back" the money not seen as stimulating the economy as well? Are you saying that money is better kept in our personal pockets of the middle class as opposed to that of Big Brother in terms of stimulating the economy?
[b]Well, if your goal is to balance the budget AND stimulate the economy, then taxing the wealthiest 5% and giving tax breaks to the rest makes complete sense. The money that is saved by tax breaks for the middle and lower classes goes right back into the economy in the form of purchases for clothes, food, gas and all of the other necessities of life.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoCollective punishment? I thought that it was the goal of the progressive movement to "give" to those in need in the form of unemployment benefits and medical benefits etc etc? Why then should the middle class not give more?.........that is unless they are scared to upset them because there are a great many of them compared to a "rich" few in terms of votes.
Is this based on economics or on your own idea of the morality of collective punishment?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo, if you read my other post, you will see that it depends on what your goal is. If you simply want to balance the budget with no concern for the economy, then letting the tax cuts expire for the "middle class" makes sense.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you think that the tax rates should go up for the middle class who think that they should go up for the "rich"?
If, however, you want to both balance the budget and stimulate the economy, then it doesn't make sense.
And let's be clear, no one is talking about raising taxes. They are talking about letting the temporary tax cuts expire. It is like when you are shopping at Walmart and something is on sale, but you go back a week later and it is no longer on sale. They didn't raise the price. They let the discounted price expire.
Originally posted by whodeyIt is seen as stimulating the economy, but it is also a drain on the budget. You seem to have missed the AND in the statement above.
But I thought that unemployment benefits "stimulate" the economy as well as does Obamacare and social security. Why then is taxing it and "giving back" the money not seen as stimulating the economy as well? Are you saying that money is better kept in our personal pockets of the middle class as opposed to that of Big Brother in terms of stimulating the economy?
Originally posted by whodeyCan you clarify this point. Even though it is bold, it isn't very clear what you are trying to say.
But I thought that unemployment benefits "stimulate" the economy as well as does Obamacare and social security. Why then is taxing it and "giving back" the money not seen as stimulating the economy as well? Are you saying that money is better kept in our personal pockets of the middle class as opposed to that of Big Brother in terms of stimulating the economy?
2 edits
Originally posted by CliffLandinSo lets work through this. According to the Democrats:
[b]So, if you read my other post, you will see that it depends on what your goal is. If you simply want to balance the budget with no concern for the economy, then letting the tax cuts expire for the "middle class" makes sense.
1. Tax cuts put money in the pockets of the average Joe which increases the federal deficit but stimulates the economy. Of course, we are only talking about tax cuts for the middle class because the rich will bury their money in the back yard thus not stimulating the eocnomy.
2. Unemployment benefits also puts money in the pockets of the average Joe and increases the federal deficit but is also stimulates the economy.
So what is the difference between #1 and #2? In fact, shouldn't increased unemployment coupled with unemployment benefits stimulate the economy further?
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhat has been the tax rate the last 8 years? You may point to the fact that these tax rates were temporary, but are not all tax rates temporarty? Let's be fair, we ARE talking about increasing taxes even though Obama and company try to get a free pass by saying that they are due to expire.
And let's be clear, no one is talking about raising taxes. They are talking about letting the temporary tax cuts expire. It is like when you are shopping at Walmart and something is on sale, but you go back a week later and it is no longer on sale. They didn't raise the price. They let the discounted price expire.[/b]