not a Republican but a conscious businessman. Taxes diminish the ability for the "middle class" to accumulate capital necessary for investment to start their own companies, thus reducing competition and benefitting the "Too Big To Fails". Sometimes, we don't truly appreciate the sacrifice of the leaders in the business community. Taxes should be cut permanently because it is the entreprenuers who took the risk to start an organization, therefore, they should be rewarded if they are successful.
Also, for some on the left, to quantify a 'tax cut' as an expense to the govt, it's absurd!
How does a tax cut have a negative effect on the national debt?
Since most small businesses don't make more than 250k a year, I fully agree with the first paragraph. Those businesses received a lot of tax relief with the Recovery Act and other bills passed through Congress at the behest of the Democratic party and the President.
It is an expense if it's not paid for. I have no problem with any tax cut but there needs to be a spending cut to offset it.
Kennedy on Tax cuts! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! And the sh*t worked, honestly, nothin else needs to be said
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AAEp0J_hzU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AAEp0J_hzU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Kennedy was the President during a different time,when we were producers and consumers and not just consumers.
History has shown that whatever you subsidize you will in return get more of. The key word is subsidize. What ever you want less of tax it to death, smoking, alcohol.
No one is talking about taxing anyone to death. Just returning to the previous tax code.
Having said that, extending unemployment benefits will lead to more unemployment. How long do we extend said benefits. Say if a person earned 30K plus housing and food all off of benefits , we'd have a heck of a lot more unemployment. Everyone knows of some uncle or cousin receiving benefits but they are very selective in their job search.
And everyone knows someone who's filling out apps and forwarding resumes all the time and getting nothing in return. My example outnumbers yours.
Do people really think there are masses of people ready to quit their job for $290 a week (the average)?
Higher unemployment benefits make unemployment less unattractive. There is a close correlation between increased unemployment benefits and an increase in the unemployment rate.
Who said anything about "higher" or "increased" benefits?
My friend I'll grant you that those dollars will be immediately recycled into the economy to keep people working in a wide array of areas. That said, it's only artificial because there is no predestine number each month.
Unemployment benefits are not stimulus.
Those two statements are contradictory.
And if we agree that that money is recycled immediately back into the economy, if we take them away, doesn't that hurt the economy and end up causing more people to be unemployed and more homes to be foreclosed?
As I mentioned before in several posts, the government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them. Everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.
Then the question is: should the government take from the many to give to the few or take from the few to give to the many. They're going to redistribute one way or the other, which one is more fair.
Yes, the unemployed may spend more from their benefits, those people from whom the resources are taken will spend less.
The unemployed end up spending their benefits and giving them right to the companies that laid them off.
A lot of callers who call in radio shows in my city complain that those with food stamps are buying king crab legs, shrimp and steaks(Ahh Louisiana) while those who have to foot the bill for their extravagant meals walk in Walmart with a list and calculator. Dave I'm in the South and the productive are pissed.
Then tell the productive to get out of people's grocery carts. If they want to change places with that person, make it happen. Give up whatever you have so you can qualify for food stamps. People on food stamps get a limited supply. If they choose to spend it on crab and shimp, so be it. I'd still rather be in my position than theirs. People kill me fighting over crumbs when someone else is running off with the breadtruck.
If your bills are tight you can't just run out and buy a Benz. There is nowhere in history that you can point to that benefits stimulated the economy or brought us out of a recession. "Compared to What" what recession or economic downturn was used??? Nobody is given money with a tax cut!! Money does't start in Washington it starts at your house and local businesses and corporations my friend.
I've never gotten the impression that unemployment benefits alone were meant to jumpstart stalling economies but are meant to keep it from sliding further by keeping money in the community.
The people who are working for me pay taxes, that money goes to Washington.
If one of my employees lose their job they will apply for unemployment benefits that have to be paid by me from my monthly budget that goes in to a state agency to disburse funds.
Where does that money comes from Mr. Dave?
That money comes from the people who are still working, and from the business that hired them. There is not a net addition of dollars added to the economy because people are out of work. All you are doing is taking money from those who are working and redistributing to those who are not working in that they have some. Sort of like welfare, medicare, medicaid etal.
Ok let's say we extend them again, Where does it stop. It's not sustainable longterm. It's an economic wash, there is no growth or new money its just a different group of people doing the spending.
And guess who gets poorer??? we all do because the productive is taxed to death and the poor is trapped receiving table scraps.
Dave this is all predicated on how you view government and what you expect from your government.
I'm a business owner the more my business grows the more people I can afford to employ. Economics 101.
But does your business grow faster because more people are able to purchase your goods/services or because your taxes are lowered? Which one is better for your business?
