Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
Mr Khan said:
It does seem as though government's priority is flipped on who should be overregulated and who shouldn't be. The rich can only be effectively taxed through a restoration of the Capital Gains Tax to something approaching a fair level, while incentive should be given to the startups and entreprenuers, loopholes should be shut down for companies like GE who somehow end up with net refunds, despite being the largest revenue drawers
|
You shouldn't need to seek incentivization of small start-ups from a governmental level, or discouraging the wealthy from creating more startups. Both people have equally important abilities in terms of creating businesses and jobs.
Rather, the government should seek to ensure there is a level playing field that has low regulations, does not benefit one type of business or one kind of person over the other. Certainly shut down all loopholes that would allow a businesses to have an advantage over another that wasn't created by itself through work and innovation.
A level playing field, low or non-existent corporate taxes, and minimal regulations would be enough of an incentive to create and sustain new jobs. Capital Gains taxes may not be the best way to go (and what the heck is a 'fair level' exactly?). I'd prefer if there was a simple flat tax and if you sold something significant that would be under a capital gains, you simply get taxed at the flat tax level (e.g. 20-25%).
|
Still, underemployment is high as well.
If anything i'd say this is more a problem of the stimulus shrinking private demand.
Which when you think about it, is a lot more logical then the stimulus stimulating demand.
"We're going to spend this money to fix the economy".
Do you
A) Feel better and buy stuff in the still broken economy in hopes there will be no problems before it's fixed.
B) Wait until the economy is fixed, then when all the signs point to it not fixing... don't spend money on wants.
I think the case is B. Everyday people have way more information now then they did back when Keysnian economics were created.
|
Part of it is psychological, to be certain. Stricter terms on dispensation of stimulus money would start (e.g. companies that receive money have to either plow it back into investment in the company or spend it on sub-VP level employees, and absolutely cannot just take that, make fat CEO cash bonuses, and continue laying people off)
The only way trickle-down theory can ever come close to working is if the rich are forced to act responsibly. Some sort of universal salary cap could help there, forcing them at least to get a certain proportion of income from investment if they want to make more than that
