Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer

[sgtmac_46]

We need a reality check here:

Clinton RAISED taxes, but overall, the economy did better, we recovered from the recession of 90-91, jobs were created.

Bush LOWERED taxes, and hasn't created a single net job, and people are hurting. But CEOs and corporations are doing great.

This trickle down concept doesn't work. The wealthy don't voluntarily make it better for their workers or hire more people.

You can't hypothesize that if taxes were lowered it would stimulate the economy, increase jobs, etc, because if you look at the evidence, it simply isn't true.

The reality is that presidents take credit and blame for the economy, but really have little power over it.

There are a lot of reasons why the 1990's had the economy it did, some of it was as a result of the peace dividend following the collapse of the soviet union, expanding high-technology, etc. The idea, however, that a president directs these things is simply incorrect. You can't really plan an economy anymore than you can the weather.

You can take advantage of conditions, and some decisions will have an outcome, though usually not a predictable one. Economies are turbulent and chaotic and are ruled by dynamics that are far too complex to predict and control.

 

[Phoenix44]

Maybe that's what the book says, but it doesn't seem like the economy has read the book!

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Yeah sometimes.....but the economist does not just argue about the economy....

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The reality is that presidents take credit and blame for the economy, but really have little power over it.

They have a lot of control over the Federal Deficit, though, and the fiscal irresponsibility of this Administration is staggering (with PLENTY of help from Congress and a Republican party that is only conservative when in opposition and a Democratic party that luvs spending too).
%-}

 

[BlueDragon1981]

True Johnathan....

Jimmy Carter wanted to do something called 0 based budgeting...which means that they can't project costs after the year before and raise it by 2%. They would have to come up with a budget and why they spent the money. Now their are many reasons this didn't fly....

One being it would leave paper trails and .... well the government doesn't want to do that.

Two it was a lot more work....and we know they don't want to do more work.

I think if done right this would be a good strategy. Take everything back to 0 and justify your costs. Only spend what you need with a small reserve in case something else happens. A lot of other things would have to go in place to make sure key government agencies didn't "underestimate" to much so they cause a major shortfall.

What do you think....with 0 based budgeting....a slight tax increase....take away marriage tax....lower land taxes....campiagn to buy american...do you think the deficit would decrease...at least in terms of the percentages it is going up. (i.e say its going up 10% .... do you think this might lead it to go up only say 2%....)

 

[sgtmac_46]

They have a lot of control over the Federal Deficit, though, and the fiscal irresponsibility of this Administration is staggering (with PLENTY of help from Congress and a Republican party that is only conservative when in opposition and a Democratic party that luvs spending too).
%-}

I think i've dealt with all of that before....President Bush is not in any sense of the word a fiscal conservative (and really never claimed to be). Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like, whether now or in Texas. Many people really misunderstand Bush's policies on spending. He, like many other politicians, use entitlement programs to generate votes (a tool I detest). Again, you are right that he isn't alone, and many Republicans seem to embrace the same kind of "spend it all" attitude that Bush does.

Of course, lets not forget that the VAST majority of Democrats never met a spending bill THEY didn't like either (unless, maybe, it was military spending). Again, Democrats are likely never to be the party of fiscal responsibility...and now, apparently, neither are the Republicans.

 

[Flying Crane]

So I have been thinking some more about this whole issue. I keep thinking that there has to be some way to reasonably incentivize the wealthy to spread the wealth more among the working class. Somehow the thought of a higher tax rate for the very wealthy keeps coming back into my head. Not like my previous, extremely unpopular suggestion of before, but rather something that allowed for a greater massing of wealth (like I said, I am not against wealth inherently, but I am looking for a way to bring it into reasonable bounds). I keep thinking that the normal rates could be taxed up to a certain, higher limit, but over that limit, a higher rater would kick in. This would only be effective on the earnings that accually exceed that limit, while the previous earnings would be taxed at the normal rates.

Keep in mind also, that I am not talking about taxing business assets that could be used to further develop business and hopefully strengthen the economy. I am talking about the personal compensation that the super wealthy take home and use in their private lives. This is money that arguably is not used to further promote business growth or actively stimulate the economy (and no, I don't believe that buying a fleet of lamborghinis and a 200 foot long yacht qualifies as actively stimulating the economy).

My reasoning in this is that it would discourage the paying of the huge and outrageous compensations and bonuses that people like the big CEOs get on a regular basis. And if they are still paid this rate, well then they get to pay more taxes on it.

But then it hit me: rather than discouraging these huge payouts, what this would do is probably just the opposite. It would actually encourage even bigger, more outrageous compensation packages and bonuses, in order to make up for the larger taxes. This of course results in even less money being redistributed among the employees of the company.

what a bummer...