Kasz216 said:
Killiana1a said:
Kasz216 said:
Killiana1a said:
Unemployment benefits, right now, are the best economic stimulus because the unemployed plug that money right back into the economy just to live. I know because I have family on unemployment.
As for tax cuts to benefit the "investor class" it can work many ways. These investors could end up plugging the tax cut money into bonds, which yield dividends but do nothing to create jobs, they invest the money into high rate of return overseas companies who create jobs in places like India and Brazil, they invest the money into a mutual fund who spends half of it paying the salaries of their financial advisors who manage the mutual fund, or they use the money to create a new business, hire more employees, create more branches, and on.
Another key reason why unemployment was so low during the Bush 2 era was because we had well over half the people who would be unemployed today fighting in 2 wars (Iraq War and the Afghanistan War). Funny how people forget how low the standards were for enlisting during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
Unemployment would be in the 6s and 7s if we did not send unemployable folks to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Except... everyone plugs there money right back into the economy more or less.
It's less effective when the poor do it then the rich, because it has to filter through first.
Before it can really create jobs it has to filter it's way back up to the rich and to companies, who then create jobs or put it in the bank which creates jobs.
Vs just giving it to the rich in the first place, which creates jobs faster.
What Squillium meant about unemployment being the best stimulus was that literally that many people are employed to deal with handing out the benefits. It was a joke.
|
Well, the government does employ people, just not me so I am not too fond of their salary and cadillac pension.
What you fail to mention is that the rich have an equal chance of investing the tax cut and stuffing it into a trust fund, Swiss or Cayman Islands bank, or just saving it. It is just not a simple give tax cut to rich = 100 percent chance of investment and job creation. If this was the case, then why is China leading on green technology compared to the US and others? Why was there no 2nd Silicon Valley in the 2000s?
Me thinks the wealthy who got the tax cuts during the Bush 2 era sent it overseas and should be taken out publicly, stripped naked, poured head to toe with hot tar, and have a bucket of feathers dumped over their heads. Traitors.
The reason why we have this debate on tax cuts is because it is not simple. Left leaning folks, such as myself, would argue that the poor and middle class should get the tax cut because we don't have as many money shelters as the wealthy, thus the money is funneled back into the economy faster. Conversely, more right leaning folks argue that it is the wealthy who have the means to create jobs, thusforth they should get the tax cut first.
We are not at philosophical odds. I understand the more wealthy can create jobs faster than your up and coming Bill Gates 2 who is dreaming up a plan to take over the world in his parent's garage. Where we differ is who should get it first and how much of the cut should be distributed amongst all the classes.
|
That means you are basically argueing that the poor and middle class now should benefit to the detrimite of all future generations... and very likely, current generation a few years into the future including those same poor and middle class people.
Me, i'll take being able to buy a bunch of things in the future, vs a few things in the present.
|
Renewing the Bush tax cuts as is or changing them to mainly benefit the poor and middle class is a far less problem for future generations than entitltements and public employee compensation.
Individuals in the summer of 2001 were not arguing against the Bush tax cuts and future generations. It is odd how it is being dragged up now.
I think if we are talking about government programs and deficits hurting future generations, then we should include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public employee compensation and benefits because they are structural, longer lasting and have more of an impact than some 5 to 10 year tax cut.
Entitlements are far more costly for future generations than immediate economic policy. NAFTA and all free trade agreements excluded because NAFTA and all other similar free trade agreements from every single 1st world, Western country has done more to erode economic opportunities than a tax cut or tax raise.
Yet, I don't want to get off topic, but I will say this:
Every single public sector manager and/or employee earning over $100k/year should have their pension converted into a 401k. Those making less than $100k and/or not management should have the option for the traditional pension or 401k. Reason being, the little guy working for the government should not be shat on by the vicissitudes of politics taking the blame for their higher ups. Those in management and/or making over 100k can easily contribute 15 to 25 percent of their yearly salary to a 401k.
This is a start.
