BillsNYC Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Good read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html PS - If any head Republicans had brains or balls, they'd be the ones arguing this. It shouldn't be a talk show host.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 The man actually thinks. Better yet, if the Dems had brains or balls they would adopt (coopt) this suggestion of his! Not bad for oxy boy... No vitrol, just a bi-partisan observation.... Hmmm, must have had an epiphany and just put down the pills.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Think about this some more though. Tax cuts are not really stimulative.... especially in the short term, which is what true Keynesian economics is about. There was some talk with Senator Feingold on MSNBC this morning about corporate tax credits for spending money on projects. This would be stimulative and yet let the private sector still decide what they wanted to spend money on. What are people on this board's take on tax credits v. tax breaks for businesses and its stimulative effect?
RkFast Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Think about this some more though. Tax cuts are not really stimulative.... especially in the short term, which is what true Keynesian economics is about. There was some talk with Senator Feingold on MSNBC this morning about corporate tax credits for spending money on projects. This would be stimulative and yet let the private sector still decide what they wanted to spend money on. What are people on this board's take on tax credits v. tax breaks for businesses and its stimulative effect? I really disagree that tax cuts arent stimulative, especially shot term. Ive had conversations at beer bashes where people would brainstorm how to spend their extra money that they got from the tax cut they recevied during Bush, let alone serious conversations around the dinner table with my spouse about how to spend it. You give people extra money they will do SOMETHING with it right away. And except for stuffing it under the mattress, that money WILL help the economy through investment, spending it, or just dropping it into a plain old savings account.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I really disagree that tax cuts arent stimulative, especially shot term. Ive had conversations at beer bashes where people would brainstorm how to spend their extra money that they got from the tax cut they recevied during Bush, let alone serious conversations around the dinner table with my spouse about how to spend it. You give people extra money they will do SOMETHING with it right away. And except for stuffing it under the mattress, that money WILL help the economy through investment, spending it, or just dropping it into a plain old savings account. Give them a stimulus check is fine, but that is a tax credit more than a cut. Also, we are talking about incentives for corporations right now, not individuals. Tax credit v. tax cut? A credit in the form of a cash payment is immediate, a cut just reduces your outlayes..... There is more likely that you will spend at least a portion of a check or cash when put in your hand and if it is a credit for doing something, i.e., requiring that you spend it is definitely stimulative. A cut may or may not be stimulative in the short term... Long term yes, but we have plenty of loopholes already for that purpose, that is why the 35% corporate rate is paper only, it is not real as stated many times before on this board.... If you're paying 35%, you have an incredibly bad accountant.
Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I really disagree that tax cuts arent stimulative, especially shot term. Ive had conversations at beer bashes where people would brainstorm how to spend their extra money that they got from the tax cut they recevied during Bush, let alone serious conversations around the dinner table with my spouse about how to spend it. You give people extra money they will do SOMETHING with it right away. And except for stuffing it under the mattress, that money WILL help the economy through investment, spending it, or just dropping it into a plain old savings account. Didn't we all get a check last year - about $1,200? If giving everyone a grand or 2 is such a great idea, why are we still in this mess?
manateefan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Didn't we all get a check last year - about $1,200? If giving everyone a grand or 2 is such a great idea, why are we still in this mess? I agree. The money didn't go where it was hoped. It was used to pay bills not buy goods. Buying goods and services stimulates the economy, not getting out of debt. The same will happen again.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I agree. The money didn't go where it was hoped. It was used to pay bills not buy goods. Buying goods and services stimulates the economy, not getting out of debt. The same will happen again. The difference is, in simple terms, that this time, instead of getting, say, $1200 in a check, you will make about $50 more in your paycheck every two weeks. Studies have shown that if people get a lump sum, they are more likely to bank it and save it or pay off bills. Because they know they are not getting more than that. But if they get a little more each week, they are much more likely to spend it, or spend some of it on goods, mostly because they know they are getting more the next week and into the future.
Recommended Posts