The flaw in that reasoning is that the US government is buying a new house every year and not either selling the old one(s) or renting them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
Printable View
The flaw in that reasoning is that the US government is buying a new house every year and not either selling the old one(s) or renting them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
The big difference is that if your household cuts its spending it will have no impact on your income. If a government cuts spending then because it is such a significant part of the economy, output falls and tax revenue drops too. If the economy shrinks because of government spending, then the government has to spend more on certain things like unemployment benefit. There is little saving to be made from sacking a government employee to pay them benefits the very next day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
The proponents of massive tax cuts seem in denial about that. Greece, Spain and the rest of Europe is finding out the hard way that this is the case.
Most of Europe including the UK is being taught that national finances are not at all like household finances!
That's an entirely good and common sense way of looking at this issue. But as you cut expenses at home, wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Successful business remain successful, even when they hit bumps in the road, by keeping an eye on expenses and revenues. It is seldom, if ever, just an either/or option.
This is why:Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
GDP = private Consumption + gross Investment + Government spending + (eXports − iMports).
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
If G falls, then GDP falls unless there is a corresponding increase in either C or I (unless you of course magically start exporting more or importing less, or both). Real wages peaked in 1979, meaning that net private consumption (C) has also, in real terms been falling. The two biggest drivers of I are growth in C (which is in the long term falling) and the cost of borrowing, which are changes in the interest rate; both of which represent the expected returns to firms.
If a nation wants to maintain GDP and C is falling, and I isn't occurring in that nation due to external factors, then the only option is a corresponding increase in G to make the shortfalls, otherwise you have a shrinking economy, which is what a lot of European nations are finding out; Britain especially.
219 Representatives and 39 Senators of the 113th Congress are committed to voting against any proposed increases through legislation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/fil...ongress(1).pdf
One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for
individuals and/or businesses; and
Two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless
matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" is in part why the 112th Congress was so unproductive and why the 113th Congress will also be one of more mind-numbing gridlock.
Great chunks of both houses are committed to refusing to accept an either/or option. They demand an our way or screw everyone approach... which is precisely what they're doing and why the very notion of debt reduction remains unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
It is truly, truly a shame that elected members of U.S. Congress would sign a pledge to a man who has, AFAIK, never held an elected office in his life: shadowy, creepy Grover Norquist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The problem here is that every time there is increased revenue, Congress spends it to buy more votes. That's why so many of us are adamant that the spending reductions be put in place before any tax increases. Quite frankly, when it comes to politicians - they lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
It would. Except I have some limitations. Right now I get the max salary there is for a man of my experience and qualifications at our domestic labor market. I know I can instantly raise my value by moving to a better paying market if I resolve the issue of getting a work permit. But where do you move a whole country to raise its revenues?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Sorry if I sound simplistic, but this is my level of economic expertise. ;)
Indeed in times of recession it can be a good time for businesses and governments to invest for the future. Labour is in plentiful supply and therefore relatively cheap, property prices are depressed, and a sensible investment plan could pay dividends in later years. Cutting spending on its own isn't a wise plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I think all of you are missing the real issue. There is plenty of corporate money (by all accounts) that is sitting on the sidelines and not being invested. Why do you think that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Now that you've asked, I'll tell you why. It is because no one in their right mind is going to invest significant amounts of money when there is a high expectation that the government is going to soon change the rules soon. It seems like every year Congress tweaks the tax (and other) regulations. There is NO continuity on which a business plan can be based. It's even worse now with the looming debt crisis. The very first order of business for Congress MUST be to decide what the new tax and spending landscape will be. Then lock it in with an assurance there will be no changes for, say, five years. I believe you will then see a lot of money entering the economy in a positive way. It almost makes little difference what the new landscape looks like, just so long as it's stable and not constantly changed.
5 year plan! Sounds familiar ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Corporations are taxed mainly on income with allowances for R/D in most countries so they are not hoarding money because of concerns about future tax changes. In fact most tax regimes promote corporate spending as much of it can be written off against tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Its more due to lack of confidence in the recovery of the global economy in the near future and they are rebuilding cash piles that were blown in the first credit crunch 4 years ago. After all we're looking at a potential Euro crash, war in Iran threatening global oil supply and the credit bubble in China bursting. If any of them (or more) happens we're looking at yet another global recession. Thats what companies are preparing themselves for, not future tax changes.
That is not correct in the US. Our tax code is completely corrupted with special exceptions, industry perks, "incentives", etc. Further, the unknown tax rates, or even what will be taxed, going forward is a big disincentive to invest. It has not been a case of make X amount of dollars and pay Y taxes for a very, very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Sorry to change the subject, but if I could I would just like to interject this:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...73155004_n.jpg
How much income did you make last year? I bet it was more than $732.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
"Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future."
- Gina Rinehart, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Sep 6 2012.
Gina Rinehart's African miners' $2 a day comment panned | Hancock
Business if it could get away with it, wants to reduce costs where ever possible.
If you were GM, would you prefer to have a factory in Australia where the average earnings of a full-time worker are A$69,000 a year or in Argentina it's about 78,000 Pesos or about A$15,900 a year?
This is GM's answer:
GM to Invest $450 Million in Argentina
Taxes are mostly an irrelevant question; especially when 26 of the fortune 500 have paid no tax since 2008 and when all of them have a lower effective average tax rate than you. The argument that the tax code is somehow to blame is quite frankly bunk.
Go back and rethink what you said in "A" and then "B", particularly how they cancel each other out. . Taxes, or at least the hodge podge way they are applied and collected, are exactly the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I did rethink what I said in "A" and then "B" and the conclusion I draw is that I'm still correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
When companies aren't actually paying tax in the first place, you can not very well claim that it is a hindrance to investment can you?
Income tax especially is calculated after the fact, at the end of the sausage machine; if you reduce the expenses going into the grinder in the first place, that has far more of a bearing on the overall position at the end.
Senator John McCain is a twirp.
Ever since he took the lead in the 2008 primaries. Over the early favorite; what was his name?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Senator John McCain
the guy that brought us Sarah Palin
the guy that lost his presidential bid against president Obama and is still pissed off and is carrying his grudge where ever he can open his mouth.
the guy that whines in front of reporters because he is demanding answers on Benhgazi and at the same time he is missing a classified briefing that was being held before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee of which he is a member.
McCain's 'scheduling error' - The Maddow Blog
and more . . . .
You missed the most important one. He is the elected Senator from his state.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
And you are??
As the old saying goes, one should salute the man, not the rank. Given that, criticism, too, is entirely appropriate. Yes, he's an elected Senator — frankly, so what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I'll be the first to say that he is not the best Senator we've ever had. Far from the worst, but not the best for sure. It's the "Senator John McCain is a twirp." that I take exception to. Senator McCain served his country in war and spent time in a prison camp because of that service. He ran for office and has served the people of his state, whether you like his positions or not, he gets reelected by those people. Perhaps we should consider just who is the twirp here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Be as it may, serves as he may have, his present actions concerning the Benghazi incident caused me to say what I said.
He has to remember to be a patriot again and stop his feeble disrespectful posturing.
Got me in a foul mood. So there.
Oh, and Strarter, you actually called me a twirp.
Wow....
Starter, if you notice I addresed him as Senator McCaine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
And who am I?
A citizen of the United States of America who is celebrating the fact that our democracy has re elected our 44th president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama and I am fed up with this partisan crap that insists in slugging the process down because things did not go the way they wanted it to be.
Yes, let's have different opinions and let's address them properly, but not in the way that, in my opinion, that is not appropriate, respectful nor responsible.
Let's move on dang it!
:s mokin:
And why is it that the only way many on the left see to stop "this partisan crap" is for the Republicans to completely give up any and all of their principals and convictions just to go along with the Dems? Why is it that conservative Republicans, who have been duly elected to represent people in their districts, many who ran (and won) on platforms against Obamacare, against new taxes, on rolling back regulation, etc, must be the ones that change in the name of stopping "partisan crap"?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
And Dem's didn't do any of that under Bush? They aren't doing that now in statehouses across the country, remember the walkouts in Indiana and Wisconsin last year? But yeah, it's just the Republicans that are being partisan. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
But only if they agree with you right?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Chuck. You may have some points there but I was addressing a particular incident which is the posturing and conspiracy theory mongering, Watergate comparing, that is happening concerning Benghazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
An investigation is taking place and we should allow the process, which is happening, to take it's course without making it a political issue that looks like post election whinnying.
That's all.
This is what I'm talking about . . . .
Soledad O
Senator John Kerry presidential opponent to George Bush. Swift Boated by a bunch of liars and had a bunch of liars like Hannity and O'Reilly and most at Fox news cheering on the liars.
I lost respect for John McCain when he did not protect his own daughter from the vile attacks of Rove acting on behalf of Bush.
Is it time to close this thread yet? In the light that the Election is over bar the shouting.