aplusmnt said:Tex said:Steve said:While it would have saved the french from a few surrenders...
American NON-intervention would have made US German.
I think a four year period of US isolation right now would show not only the world,.. but US, the foly of isolation policy.
it's always cheaper to do nothing,... investment takes capital. sacrifice and courage....
".....and tax cuts."
Yep, as long as it increases Tax revenue. Bush did not cut taxes he cut the tax rate. Which resulted in a Tax revenue increase. There is a big difference in cutting taxes and cutting the tax rate. Come on you are an Econ major surely you know that?
Do we need to give you some Econ101 lessons to understand it?
If Bush cut taxes as you say then the Government would have experienced a decrease from incoming tax revenue! But this did not happen, the Government actually saw an increase in Tax Revenue do to stimulation of the economy!
THE ONLY time decreased tax rates have increased taxes is when there are unrealized taxes such as capital gains taxes. The taxes in that situation are there, waiting to have to come into existence by a trade. (There are some exceptions due to other economic factors but they are special circumstances)
You could solve this tax delay by having a yearly capital appreciation tax based on the value of the asset, not on whether or not it was traded. It would be like the adjustments you have to your house valuation every 3 years, if you are in most states, instead of a tax that was due when you sold the asset.
I don't agree with this type of tax solution, but it would stop the stupidity in the argument you bring up, aplus.
I don't agree with higher taxes in general but I really don't agree the govt. should borrow all the time. They should be able to borrow perhaps during times of recession when the velocity of money is not high to get the economy going with deficit spending .or in times of war. This should be countered with savings when the economy is good.
The big question is how much of our dollars do we want our government to spend for government services and how much do we want to spend. It is not how much do we want our govt. to spend and spend more by borrowing off of the nation's future earnings through debt. The debt part has to be paid off by someone and it should be counted as it is accrued, not when the debt instruments are due.
It is true that if you let the govt. gobble up the economic pie, you will have less to spend on what you want to spend on.