klystron said:
mike_intellivision said:
My opinion is that we have to cut expenses and raise revneues. If you are short of money as an individual, you look for more work and look to cut your spending. The country needs to do the same thing. To discount one of these is folly. And to be honest, each party basically makes this folly from different ends. If you look at Stein's comment, he is saying that you can't solve the fiscal issues without doing both -- and it should be started where it would have the least drag on the economy (on those with the highest disposable income) and phased in across the board. He is not saying "tax the rich" exclusively.
As for the educational credit example, the tax code is a mess and needs to be overhauled -- both for indivudals and corporations. It is littered with inefficiencies and inequities. I do not disagree with that.
Finally, remember if social chaos breaks out, the rich have the most to lose. That is why many governmental services -- from police to inspections to securities guarantees -- have a greater value to them than the poor.
|
If you raise taxes growth stalls unless there are some rather unusual circumstances like the dot-com boom. You can raise revenue by growing the economy. It doesn't have to come from tax hikes.
|
I have heard that theory before. I also know that Britain cut the government and cut 0.5% off its GDP. There are no easy solutions and to take something direclty off the table because you don't like it is simplistic and foolish.
I am not saying that you should not examine it before enacting it -- but that everything has to be on the table. We cannot "ready, shoot aim" which too many people seem to want to do. Nor can we fight the deficit with one hand tied behind our back.
I am Mario.
