Simple question: Which will stimulate the economy in the long run? A one time tax cut or a permanent pay raise?
I don't like politicians who promise to "create good jobs." I think they'd accomplish more in the long run by making the bad jobs better.
You're getting it. A tax cut will result in a single instance of purchasing goods, which won't affect the economy at all . The poor may buy a nice dinner for the family, with their measily $100. The rich won't spend their $100,000 windfall, except to buy back stock in their own companies. But a pay raise will result in a continued ability to purchase goods, due to a continued ability to make $100 payments on substantial purchases of American made goods.
Increase minimum wage would be more effective than a pay raise, since the poor inevitably spend it. Higher income people might just save or invest more.
Good, we agree. And having spending money stimulates the economy. Why would they do anything but save or buy back stock to increase their own wealth? They won't invest in jobs if they don't need the help and profitable companies seldom need additional help unless there is additional demand! p.s. I have addressed the inherent unfairness in pay raises in my missive about COLA, which is based on a raise as a percentage of salary, which results in a totally skewed allocation of funds. Consider a 3% pay raise to a person making a 20,000 p/yr (600), and a 3% pay raise to a person making 200.000 p/yr. (6000)....? Who does this favor, can you riddle me that one.....?
In the long term? The tax cuts of course. If you reduce revenue you reduce every service the government provides. Why is our infrastructure so hopelessly outdated and in need of repair? Clinton raised taxes and minimum wages and brought the nation back from total financial disaster. Trickle down economy will never work, because it depends on the generosity of rich people who have become rich by being stingy. And you can talk around that any way you want but when a company is in financial trouble they hire a business consultant who shows them how to save money, not how to reward their employees by giving them a pay raise. And why is it that so many of the biggest companies leave the US. Because they can get cheaper labor elsewhere. That does not sound generous to me at all. On the contrary. All they do is participating in a race to the bottom, while raking in massive profits, on which they are given tax breaks to boot.
You said a one time tax cut. How do you define "one time"? The answer (and the question) doesn't matter however. Clinton lowered the capital gains tax. You know that "stock buybacks" is not some terrible thing nor is it something that "the wealthy" are doing. Businesses do that if they are in industries that are mature and therefore they have no better use for those profits so they return them to shareholders (as they do profits). I guess your point is that you want some politician to make your employer give you more money?
My point is that any job that is worth the hiring of labor is worth providing a living wage, if only for the loyalty and job stability alone. There are many ways a company can offer little perks, such as hiring one on-site child care giver for women with infants. Employee cost reduction always ends up with internal strife. Why do you think labor unions were invented to begin with? Was it because the workers were treated with satisfactory compensation for their hard work?
A one trillion dollar tax cut which benefitted only the high income wage earners, like the first thing Trump did for his own advantage and a bribe to high income earners to gain their loyalty. Low income people, who needed it most did not see any cuts in their taxes . Just wasn't worth fooling around with millions of low wage earners. oh and btw. https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/# This "one" time trillion dollar tax cut did nothing for the economy other than stimulating the net worth of large companies and a resulting healthy stock market, which is a false indicator of the nation's economic health. During slavery, the stock market was thriving. The hidden links between slavery and Wall Street By Zoe Thomas BBC Business reporter, New York Published: 29 August 2019 Share Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! image captionA tour group photographs a sign marking the location of New York City's slave market https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49476247 Wow, who'd have guessed. A healthy stock market built on the backs of slaves paid in food and shelter. Why do you think Michelle Obama uttered the famous words:" "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves," she said. "And I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent black young women, playing with their dogs on the White House lawn. And because of Hillary Clinton, my daughters and all our sons and daughters now take for granted that a woman can be president of the United States. So don't let anyone ever tell you that this country isn't great, that somehow we need to make it great again, because this right now is the greatest country on earth."[/quote] https://abcnews.go.com/US/fact-checking-lady-michelle-obamas-speech-white-house/story?id=40887848 Most of this nation's infrastructure was built by slaves. Slave-built infrastructure still creates wealth in US, suggesting reparations should cover past harms and current value of slavery https://theconversation.com/slave-b...ast-harms-and-current-value-of-slavery-153969
Here is a novel idea: If you earn less than a congressman/woman You pay no income tax. (= instant pay raise of up to 22%)
Perhaps a more workable approach is that all congress persons buy their own healthcare insurance and not rely on the taxes paid by people who cannot afford their own healthcare insurance.
I agree that Congress shouldn't have better plans than most people have. I do agree that health care is the one program that should be universal. I don't agree that what people make should be set arbitrary rather than by the market. That's the problem with Congress, Federal jobs and unions. It's artificial rather than market based. The only reason it works, to the degree that it does work is because 2/3 of the economy is private and only 1/3 is public (government). You are basically asking the 2/3 productive, market based employees to fund everything else. It's not workable. If you want more money, get a better job. You do that by getting more marketable skills. There really isn't any long-term way around that fact of life. Money doesn't grow on trees and you make what you make based on your marketable skills and not on what kind of lifestyle you think you deserve. It's the same with trying to "punish" the "rich" rather than trying to do the same things that got them "rich". Don't tax capital gains (investments) when what you should want is more investments. If you feel that only the "rich" have stocks and that stocks are too good of a deal then 1) you are wrong since about half of all Americans have some funds in the stock market and 2) rather than try to tax the goose that laid the golden egg... learn to do for yourself the same things that work for the "rich". Quit focusing on being the victim and on being a "worker" as opposed to just being a productive individual. It's not about "us" vs "them".
One issue that is rarely addressed is the impact of raising the minimum wage on the social security fund. I believe it would be in a solvent position now if minimum wage had been colaed when it was back in the 1970's. There is also the "special" lower minimum wage that is paid to some workers. I hope that is eliminated. People in the lower half of wage earners tend to drive consumer spending; people in the top half tend to drive market values which are beginning to have very little relationship to economic reality.
I agree to point. But there is also a history of Monopolies, which made unreasonable profits. Case in point the recent freeze in Texas, where private distributors who were still operational went completely overboard. Business is not as honorable as it is made out to be. Trump was a perfect example of that. Texas woman files suit against Griddy over $9K electricity bill during winter freeze https://abc13.com/texas-woman-charg...ing-customers-during-arctic-freeze/10365821/#
I totally disagree with that proposition. That's is a false analogy. 5 oil companies own half of the US wealth, and you say that 300 million people should strive towards that same goal? Drill baby drill! You do realize that there is probably about 45+ years worth of oil left to drill at current rates. Our children will experience the end of fossil fuels. Summary Table Oil Reserves 1,650,585,140,000 barrels Oil Consumption 35,442,913,090 barrels per year 97,103,871 barrels per day Reserves/Consumption 47 (years left) (Data shown in the table is for 2016. Counter shows current estimate.) World Oil Reserves See also: List of countries by Oil Reserves There are 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world as of 2016. The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves). OIL RESERVES 1,650,585,140,000 barrels 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels) continued.......
continued.... Search: #Country Oil Reserves (barrels) in 2016 World Share 1 Venezuela 299,953,000,000 18.2% 2 Saudi Arabia 266,578,000,000 16.2% 3 Canada 170,863,000,000 10.4% 4 Iran 157,530,000,000 9.5% 5 Iraq 143,069,000,000 8.7% 6 Kuwait 101,500,000,000 6.1% 7 United Arab Emirates 97,800,000,000 5.9% 8 Russia 80,000,000,000 4.8% 9 Libya 48,363,000,000 2.9% 10 Nigeria 37,070,000,000 2.2% 11 United States 35,230,000,000 2.1% Statistical Review of World Energy - British Petroleum U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) https://www.worldometers.info/oil/
