I don't think it will be that simple and easy.

 

It is that simple, but nothing about making the dollar climb is 'that easy.'

I don't think it will be that simple and easy.

 

It is that simple, but nothing about making the dollar climb is 'that easy.'

 

I think the point was that the dollar going up in value isn't that simple. The dollar going up won't happen, why would it? We've printed so many pieces of paper that they will soon be just about worthless.

I think the point of the earned income tax credit is to provide an incentive to work among the working poor and to avoid having to give them in-kind or direct welfare benefits when they could just earn that income themselves.

 

You really have extremist views. Even conservative Republicans are in favor of earned income tax credits, because they recognize that it is important to keep the working poor employed and making sure they have enough money to live on. There is a societal benefit in having people work, both in terms of what it does to communities and how it effects the children of such working class people.

 

It is also a tool to keep working families from living in poverty. I guess you don't care about that.

There was a time when the richest among us paid 91% of their income to Uncle Sam. Relatively speaking, they've got it made these days.

 

This country doesn't need to mess with the people's taxes anymore. (EDIT: Thinking about it again, I see how lower individual income taxes create jobs, by giving more money to spend, but these days it may not be enough.)

 

What needs to happen is a decrease of corporate taxes. This nation's businesses, even with all those derided "government subsidies", have the second-highest tax burden by percentage of revenue in the world, barely edged by Japan as the highest.

I think the point of the earned income tax credit is to provide an incentive to work among the working poor and to avoid having to give them in-kind or direct welfare benefits when they could just earn that income themselves.

 

You really have extremist views. Even conservative Republicans are in favor of earned income tax credits, because they recognize that it is important to keep the working poor employed and making sure they have enough money to live on. There is a societal benefit in having people work, both in terms of what it does to communities and how it effects the children of such working class people.

 

It is also a tool to keep working families from living in poverty. I guess you don't care about that.

There was a time when the richest among us paid 91% of their income to Uncle Sam. Relatively speaking, they've got it made these days.

 

This country doesn't need to mess with the people's taxes anymore. (EDIT: Thinking about it again, I see how lower individual income taxes create jobs, by giving more money to spend, but these days it may not be enough.)

 

What needs to happen is a decrease of corporate taxes. This nation's businesses, even with all those derided "government subsidies", have the second-highest tax burden by percentage of revenue in the world, barely edged by Japan as the highest.

 

I think lower corporate taxes for companies in nascent industries is the way to go - companies trying to create alternative forms of energy, green technologies, etc. Unfortunately, from a pure economics standpoint, we're not really in a position to progress in this system. Energy costs are high and will stay high, liquidity is low, which means there is very little capital for corporate growth and development, and demand for virtually everything is stagnant. In other words, we need a fundamental change in the economy. I think it starts by creating alternative forms of energy and the government providing serious tax incentives to companies in those industries (as well as low interest rate loans), which will reduce energy costs, bring down inflation, create new technologies, bring new jobs to America, and put us back in more control of our own destiny. If you think keeping the American economy fundamentally the way it is now will bring about economic prosperity you are sadly mistaken. The capital markets just will not do it for us. We're in for a long ride.

I don't think it will be that simple and easy.

 

It is that simple, but nothing about making the dollar climb is 'that easy.'

 

I think the point was that the dollar going up in value isn't that simple. The dollar going up won't happen, why would it? We've printed so many pieces of paper that they will soon be just about worthless.

Pretty much.

 

Buy back currency by increasing the rate in which the federal reserve takes money out of circulation and slow the rate of replacement. It will just take a while.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

 

It depends on what percentage of their income they spend on non-food items and how you define "necessities". Clothes? Consumer products? They're not going to tax those? The poor still spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on non-food items that are necessary.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

 

It depends on what percentage of their income they spend on non-food items and how you define "necessities". Clothes? Consumer products? They're not going to tax those? The poor still spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on non-food items that are necessary.

 

I've read it several ways. I've heard of such a tax where the necessities that don;t get taxed includes food, certain types of clothes (i believe based on if the clothes is luxury clothing or not, so a ralph lauren polo may not get the break but a walmart one might), household appliances and other items like TP and soap.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

 

It depends on what percentage of their income they spend on non-food items and how you define "necessities". Clothes? Consumer products? They're not going to tax those? The poor still spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on non-food items that are necessary.

 

I've read it several ways. I've heard of such a tax where the necessities that don;t get taxed includes food, certain types of clothes (i believe based on if the clothes is luxury clothing or not, so a ralph lauren polo may not get the break but a walmart one might), household appliances and other items like TP and soap.

 

Not much of a tax, then. And it would likely increase the cost of those basic necessities as more well to do Americans shift their spending towards those items for tax reasons.

The best proposal for covering the taxes on necessities I've seen has no excemptions but every tax paper receives a prebate for the tax amount that one would pay on poverty-level expenditures.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

 

It depends on what percentage of their income they spend on non-food items and how you define "necessities". Clothes? Consumer products? They're not going to tax those? The poor still spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on non-food items that are necessary.

 

I've read it several ways. I've heard of such a tax where the necessities that don;t get taxed includes food, certain types of clothes (i believe based on if the clothes is luxury clothing or not, so a ralph lauren polo may not get the break but a walmart one might), household appliances and other items like TP and soap.

 

Not much of a tax, then. And it would likely increase the cost of those basic necessities as more well to do Americans shift their spending towards those items for tax reasons.

 

 

Well everybody buys food. But there's no reason to believe that a 'weel-to-do' person will stop buying from Armani simply because the sales tax is higher. Considering they will have more money in their pocket because they won't be paying a fed income tax.

Just a quick note. Any federal consumption tax would not include necessities, such as food. So, the poor will not be taxed higher. The real criticism of it, is it remains to be seen if the government will be able to collect enough funds to do the things it wants to do. However, many argue that if it doesn't it would force the bureaucracy to be reduced.

 

It depends on what percentage of their income they spend on non-food items and how you define "necessities". Clothes? Consumer products? They're not going to tax those? The poor still spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on non-food items that are necessary.

 

I've read it several ways. I've heard of such a tax where the necessities that don;t get taxed includes food, certain types of clothes (i believe based on if the clothes is luxury clothing or not, so a ralph lauren polo may not get the break but a walmart one might), household appliances and other items like TP and soap.

 

Not much of a tax, then. And it would likely increase the cost of those basic necessities as more well to do Americans shift their spending towards those items for tax reasons.

 

 

Well everybody buys food. But there's no reason to believe that a 'weel-to-do' person will stop buying from Armani simply because the sales tax is higher. Considering they will have more money in their pocket because they won't be paying a fed income tax.

 

I guess we'd have to study the possible effects more closely. This is all speculation. I suppose there is a way to figure it out.

I guess we'd have to study the possible effects more closely. This is all speculation. I suppose there is a way to figure it out.

 

 

Again, the leading national sales tax proposal is the Fair Tax and frankly it is a more progressive system than our current system, puts American business on the same playing field as imports while being free-market friendly

The author of the article in the OP is a right-winger spouting the same tired Republican talking points that have been used for years.

 

1) Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39%, yet the economy was great in the 90s

 

2) Bush cut the top tax rate to 35%, yet the economy has been generally bad.

 

Correlation does not equal causation

 

As for the tired free-market-deregulation discussion: AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merryl Lynch, Subprime Mortgage Crisis

As for the tired free-market-deregulation discussion: AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merryl Lynch, Subprime Mortgage Crisis

 

Bold items are not the result of a free market, they are a result of government guarantees

Bold items are not the result of a free market, they are a result of government guarantees

no, they are the result of a free market

Bold items are not the result of a free market, they are a result of government guarantees

no, they are the result of a free market

no of the government. If the government and SIV funds and them not letting the free market take place.

 

the market had control today. Barclays bought Lehman, a Korean company is looking to invest in Washington Mutual and AIG. This is the free market. As I stated in the other thread, the US is the only economy that has rebounded this week after huge drops globally.

Bold items are not the result of a free market, they are a result of government guarantees

no, they are the result of a free market

 

No, Freddie and Fannie have de-facto backing by the US Government for defaults (proved by the government move last week). Once the subprime mess hit the wall mortgate backed securities became worthless without Freddie and Fannie backing and the Fed, in an effort to prop things up gave Fannie and Freddie access to low-interest loans, which in turn were used to back failing subprime MBS, and in turn put the government on the hook for more crap.

 

It is not the free market, it is an artificial market generated by government surety and abused by greedy people. Thank you FDR (Fannie), Richard Nixon (Freddie), Jimmy Carter (Community Reinvestment Act) and Warren Buffet (big f***ing mouth)!

As for the tired free-market-deregulation discussion: AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merryl Lynch, Subprime Mortgage Crisis

 

Bold items are not the result of a free market, they are a result of government guarantees

 

Obama actually agrees with you (except for the sub prime part of your statement). I agree that it's kind of in between and the people running both companies were reckless because they knew the government had their backs. On the other hand, it was the government itself that deregulated that industry and let them do whatever they pleased. Either you let them do what they want and don't provide a guarantee or you provide a guarantee but make sure they don't get out of control.

You need to be more specific on 'do whatever they want' because I don't quite see your point. This was the result of artificially low interest rates leading to malinvestment and uncollateralized loans. Purely a product of government regulation.

 

Basing this on greed is purely a knee-jerk emotional response without merit. The government needs to be regulated, not the marketplace.

 

It was greed, it was freed fueled by exploitable government regulation.

 

The CRA is government regulation, Fannie and Freddie are government regulation, the Fed is government manipulation. None of them are free-market items.

You can also blame Mr. Clinton allowing hte sub prime market to be available. In 1994 when this happened it really created a flux on everything.

There needs to be more transparency in the system so that investors make informed decisions. A lot of these financial instruments had very little transparency, so they often hid their risks. I don't mean to say that the government needs to regulate everything. I think transparency is enough. If people make bad decisions even with full information, let em suffer.

 

BTW, the Fed is basically nationalizing AIG. How do you feel about it? I think it's a terrible idea. I don't think it's the government's place.

There needs to be more transparency in the system so that investors make informed decisions. A lot of these financial instruments had very little transparency, so they often hid their risks. I don't mean to say that the government needs to regulate everything. I think transparency is enough. If people make bad decisions even with full information, let em suffer.

 

BTW, the Fed is basically nationalizing AIG. How do you feel about it? I think it's a terrible idea. I don't think it's the government's place.

 

The problem is that soon everyone will start looking for government aid when things start going south. We're setting a dangerous precedent. I understand that w/ freddie and fannie, the government had to act, because of their quasi-public nature.

With all due respect, there was a time in our history when we did not have the Fed and the government never intervened, and we had huge booms and busts. You make it sound like we've always had the fed. And the truth is that our economy has been more stable since we've had the Fed, and particularly when the Fed has been more skillful.

I think the point of the earned income tax credit is to provide an incentive to work among the working poor and to avoid having to give them in-kind or direct welfare benefits when they could just earn that income themselves.

 

You really have extremist views. Even conservative Republicans are in favor of earned income tax credits, because they recognize that it is important to keep the working poor employed and making sure they have enough money to live on. There is a societal benefit in having people work, both in terms of what it does to communities and how it effects the children of such working class people.

 

It is also a tool to keep working families from living in poverty. I guess you don't care about that.

There was a time when the richest among us paid 91% of their income to Uncle Sam. Relatively speaking, they've got it made these days.

 

Just to correct you, the highest marginal rate was 91% at some point, but the effective rate was never that high. There's a distinction, and I hope you understand it.