patrick.net

bob2356 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Even the NYT was surprised at the increase in Tax Revenues from the Bush Tax Cut..(2006) how we soon forget... Step up Bob, add to the discussion your idea to increase jobs, expand economy, and increase tax revenues. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

The tax revenue was 500 billion less each year 2008-2013 vs 2006. The tax rates didn't go up, where is all the extra revenue from the Bush tax cut those years? Maybe the tax revenue in 2006 had something to due with an epic bubble in the economy? No of course not it had to be the tax cuts in the right wingnut fantasy world.

What is the problem with cutting tax rates across the board for working people while decreasing spending at a comparable rate?

I would disagree with that statement though. With unemployment at current levels, I don't think the economy is running as strong now as it ever has.

--------------

In my opinion, "unemployment" isn't the greatest gauge of the strength of the economy. Maybe in the olden days, but not in present time. If we can produce everything everyone needs and wants, without every last poor soul being worked to the bone, I believe we can still have a strong economy?

Actually, that is desirable,no

That's why I posit the economy is as strong as ever. Lean and mean. If you're concerned that everyone be made to work, than pine for the 20 hour work week

Analyzer says

What is the problem with cutting tax rates across the board for working people while decreasing spending at a comparable rate?

Where to decrease spending? That's the difficult question. It's easy to speak broadly, but difficult to actually implement.

errc says

In my opinion, "unemployment" isn't the greatest gauge of the strength of the economy. Maybe in the olden days, but not in present time. If we can produce everything everyone needs and wants, without every last poor soul being worked to the bone, I believe we can still have a strong economy?

Actually, that is desirable,no

That's why I posit the economy is as strong as ever. Lean and mean. If you're concerned that everyone be made to work, than pine for the 20 hour work week

I do pine for the 20 hour workweek. Because I don't think our current economy produces everything that everyone needs or wants by any stretch. 50% of the people have nothing. There's no way we are producing everything they need or want. They can't afford to pay for it, so there's no reason to produce it....

50% of the people have nothing??

I'm not sure what your definition of nothing is. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're yet another one of the long line of patnet posters completely disconnected from the realities of us poor people in this country

errc says

50% of the people have nothing??

I'm not sure what your definition of nothing is. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're yet another one of the long line of patnet posters completely disconnected from the realities of us poor people in this country

OK--50% of the people have very little disposable income. Do you like that one better?

tatupu70 says

Analyzer says

What is the problem with cutting tax rates across the board for working people while decreasing spending at a comparable rate?

Where to decrease spending? That's the difficult question. It's easy to speak broadly, but difficult to actually implement.

Do we have a revenue problem, a spending problem, or both? Who can lay this all out for us in simple terms?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W068RCQ027SBEA

says we mostly have a spending problem.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qF1

is real spending per employed person, 2009 dollars

We need to cut spending 30% to get back to 1990s levels.

But if we cut spending, I think GDP would collapse since gov't is performing the "central redistributor" role in the economy, recirculating money from the 1% and overseas back into the paycheck economy (where it belongs!).

e.g. cut DOD back to 1990s levels:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A824RX1Q020SBEA

is a $200B/yr cut. Let's say we get 1 job per $200,000 spending, that's a million jobs right there, but the true ratio is probably one job per $50,000, or less.

The DOD isn't throwing this money into a furnace, it's hitting every congressional district in the country, every month.

Where I live I see ANG F-15s punch holes in the sky, that's $40M/yr in payroll and $20M in supplies, maybe good for 1000 jobs here, 1 out of 400 jobs in the county.

And that's just a single squadron!

But if we can't cut spending, then we have a revenue problem.

Taxes could in fact go up a lot this decade and next, since they're so low now.

I think we need to double FICA over the next 20 years, raising it 10 bps a quarter or something, and then pay out whatever that added revenue adds to SSA's coffers.

Problem with raising taxes is that it has to, I think, come out of home valuations in the end.

Japan has this problem, they've painted themselves into a horrible corner trying to support their sky-high land valuations by hook or crook.

The Eurosocialist nordic states, UK, Canada, Oz, too. Same problem, letting housing get so, so out of control.

tatupu70 says

50% of the people have nothing.

"Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses"

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

and yet

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

can't work just 20 hours and pay the rent, no way no how.

Housing is why we're broke, but nobody gets this.

It's really weird.