Nobel winners attack Bush economics

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
Aren't there separate paragraphs for Income tax, and SS?

What exactly do you think payroll taxes are and why do you think he mentioned them as being seperate from income taxes?

[Dinner]

Income tax and SS are two entirely different items but both fall under the catagory of pay roll taxes.

[DuncanK]

As most people, I doubt that the tax-cuts will do much to stimulate the economy in the short run. They will however add to the national debt. If the economy doesn't recover on its own we will need demand stimulating deficits to help it along. Remember that the FF rate is 1.25%(or 1.75%, i could be off a bit). At this point there is little the Fed can do to help. Those future deficits could cause interest rates to increase as well. That could cause interest payments as part of the federal budget to balloon. That could be tough to remedy.

[DanS]

I think Bush is playing a bigger game than accounted for by these nobel award winners--their arguments are rather narrow.

Looking at the latest research on taxes and economic incentives, and Bush's proposals, you get the impression that he is trying to move us away from income taxes and more toward a flat consumption tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42236-2003Feb7.html

Personally, I don't know what to make of it. I've always hated consumption taxes, or at least the way Europe has done it, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

[Dinner]

Dan: There are two seporate issues here. One is the short term stimulus package and wither it is effective, needed, and or justified. The second is a longer term reorganization of the tax code and wither that is needed, should be done, and/or how it should be structured.

The evidience has all come in that Bush's approach to #1 is absolutely wrong and will not provide meaningful amounts of short term stimulus. It will, however, generate a larger budget deficit. #2 is still in the air but the larger the federal deficit the less likely we will have room to do anything about #2.

(BTW sorry all those refrences to #2 sounds kind of gross )

[Dinner]

BTW creating a new "consumption tax" would amount to an increase in taxes and thus Bush would lose his base of antitax Republicans. Also the whole flat tax thing is just another giagantic give away for the rich. What he's talking about is getting ride of the graduated income tax scale we now have and making everyone (poor or rich) pay the same percent of income as income tax. As the system is set up now poor people pay a smaller percent of income tax and wealthy people pay a higher percent of income for the income tax.

Creating a flat tax would mean raising taxes on the poor and DRAMATICALLY lowering taxes on the rich. That is just not a good economic policy.

[Ramo]

I think Bush is playing a bigger game than accounted for by these nobel award winners--their arguments are rather narrow.
Looking at the latest research on taxes and economic incentives, and Bush's proposals, you get the impression that he is trying to move us away from income taxes and more toward a flat consumption tax.

More regressive taxes. Gotta love Shrub.

[DanS]

I think progressivity is a worthwhile subject to discuss. There are some studies that indicate progressivity for the upper-upper class is very harmful to the economy.

Personally, I favor at least modest progressivity and therefore like income taxes. But again, I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

[DuncanK]

You don't neccessarily need tax cuts. We could give out those checks again, but just make them bigger.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Progressive speeding tickets. :doitnow:

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
NEWS Flash: Cutting pay roll taxes puts money in the hands of people who spend it while give aways to the wealthy ussually get slushed into stocks or savings accounts. If money is saved and not circulated then it doesn't boost economic output.

Exactly my thoughts as soon as I heard the plan.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
I think Bush is playing a bigger game than accounted for by these nobel award winners--their arguments are rather narrow.

Looking at the latest research on taxes and economic incentives, and Bush's proposals, you get the impression that he is trying to move us away from income taxes and more toward a flat consumption tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb7.html

In other words increase taxes on the poor (who spend all their money) and decrease it on the rich (who save a significant portion)?

Never mind the fact that grauated taxation levels are right out the window with that idea, unless you're willing to apply some sort of enormously complicated luxury tax scheme...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cutting pay roll taxes puts money in the hands of people who spend it while give aways to the wealthy ussually get slushed into stocks or savings accounts.

I didn't know you were in favor of ending Social Security and Medicare... and if you aren't, where do you think the money comes from for those programs?

And, duh, of course Bush wants to change the entire tax structure. He is willing to look at the long term as opposed to the short term.

[Dinner]

Imran: Look at my response to this on page one. BTW if you want to kill SS then the fast way to do it is to institute a flat tax scheme; without the wealthy kicking in extra to support the retirement of the poor then the meager social safty next we've constructed for seniors goes belly up in no time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

SS comes from payroll taxs, Oerdin. A flat tax won't do anything to it.