Article here.
Hmmm, if raising taxes decreases consumption, then wouldn't it hold true that decreasing taxes would increase consumption (that is to say, stimulate the economy)?
The Z Platform
1 day ago
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
shhh, that thar is heresy in the ranks of liberals. Be glad you're on the dark side
I don't know anybody who would disagree that lowering taxes at the same time as borrowing money to run government injects new money into the economy, thereby stimulating it.
You people are jousting at windmills!
I prefer cutting taxes and spending and balancing the budget.
How would you trim the 3 or 400 billion dollars in Bush's 2008 budget to balance it?
What would be in your budget that is not in his?
The budget of course, is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
PS. Good luck - I think you'll need it as you don't seem to be able to be able to differentiate between sales and income taxes and between micro and macroeconomics.
Please show where my economics are faulty.
You know the New York Post had an interesting editorial yesterday about how NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has raised taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking but what it actually did was to open up the bootlegging of far more unhealthy cigarettes tenfold with no quality control involved. Bottom line is smokers are still getting their smokes but they're even more dangerous. Welcome to the Utopian world of liberalism. What is it the liberals are always saying? you can't legislate morality.
I think the income tax should be eliminated entirely, we have so many other taxes to raise revenues, sales tax alone is a gold mine. There's an old moral argument which nobody, not even most conservatives unless you're of the libertarian bent, make anymore and that is if I perform a service for another person, say paint his house, and he pays me what business is it of the government to take a portion of my hard-earned money?
Beth, your tems economics are faulty in that you ignore the national debt and harp about cutting taxes yet only name eency-weencie butget items you'd be willing to cut. You also seem to believe the gas tax fully funds transportation, and more that the gas tax is "raided" for other purposes.
Believe me, I would love to cut most of the federal budget. Things should either be eliminated, privitized, or put to the state or local level of government.
As for the gas tax, it is not meant to fund "transportation" such as mass transit systems. It should be fixing the roads for the people who paid the gas tax and who are driving on those roads and over the bridges.
Yes, but what things? I'd like to cut the federal budget by 98% but I can only name 15 or 20% of spending I'd be willing to cut. Am I misunderstanding and all you're saying is I'd like to cut ... and I'm hearing I'm willing to cut ...?
Mass transit - With what monies should mass transit be built?
According to this Federal Highway Administration page, using gas taxes for mass transit was Reagan's idea and the only time the amount going to mass transit increased was under Bush 42. Just sayin' - I still think it's a good idea.
Mass transit should be locally built and funded, does it make sense for me in Ohio to pay for a light rail in Minnesota? No!
As I mentioned, privitizing and moving some parts of the federal government to local government would reduce our federal taxes. Sure, it would necessitate increases in local taxes to some degree, but that makes sense to me. Eliminating and privitizing and localizing cannot happen overnight but gradually.
But I'm positive Ohio gets more for mass transit than it puts in through the gas tax.
This benefits the nation as a whole as providing mass transit in densely populated areas takes pressures off energy prices nationwide.
Post a Comment