<p>As far as taxes are concerned, I would expect that raising taxes is not the most efficient way of stimulating the economy as the government is very inefficient to begin with. The expression “velocity of money” may come into play here. Its velocity is faster going directly to the consumer than through the government and ultimately to the consumer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with that.</p>
<p>A while back I spent some time living in England and experienced one of the silliest examples of tax waste ever. </p>
<p>To make a long story short, I was subject to a tax of about £500 ($1,000) but was exempt from paying it. Now a normal person would assume that the most obvious thing to do is to just exempt me from paying in the first place, but clearly that would be too simple. Instead I paid the £500, that money went from one government office to another office and then another, finally about two months later I got a cheque in the mail for £500. When I pointed out the moronic nature of such a system to one of the government offices the civil servant just said something along the lines of “Yes, but if we did it your way then all those people who shuffled the paperwork around and moved your money around would be out of a job.” </p>
<p>I just rolled my eyes, but at least I got my £500 back, after probably having cost the government an additional £500 in waste.</p>
<p>The people in Massachusetts also, know that windmills kill tons of birds. Windmills also are not 100% reliable. They require a backup system. The wind just stops blowing sometimes. You can expect them to cover 10% to max 18% of our energy needs at the most in some parts of the country.</p>
<p>
I thought it was because the Kennedy clan didn’t want them in their view.
[Washington</a> Times - Kennedy tries to halt windmills](<a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/mar/02/20060302-124537-9804r/]Washington”>http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/mar/02/20060302-124537-9804r/)</p>
<p>Wow you would think a liberal enviromentalist like Kennedy would love windmills. lol</p>
<p>It’s a classic case of NIMBY</p>
<p>DocT: take a look at this document. Obviously, this is a complex matter about which there are many different views. In my opinion, the mere belief that the PRC <em>could</em> suddenly withdraw a large portion of its holdings would have an effect on the economy and this is a bargaining chip. Saber rattling is too strong a description but nowadays a lot of politics is really about economic issues.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf</a></p>
<p>What does “withdraw a large portion of its holdings” even mean?</p>
<p>
[The</a> Associated Press: McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6BGElNdpY2nz-fImarr0qXLqaXgD92778Q00]The”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6BGElNdpY2nz-fImarr0qXLqaXgD92778Q00)</p>
<p>Mr. Payne:
Read the report and decide for yourself. It’s from the Congressional Research Service.</p>
<p>I will read the document - however - I doubt anybody would want to harm our economy these days - every other country depends heavily on the consumers here. Slowdowns here produce slowdowns in the rest of the world as is once again being shown. Those who believe that the rest of the world is decoupled from the US are wrong.</p>
<p>"You Can’t Soak the Rich</p>
<p>Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery deserves to be called Hauser’s Law, because it is as central to the economics of taxation as Boyle’s Law is to the physics of gases. Yet economists and policy makers are barely aware of it."</p>
<p>[You</a> Can’t Soak the Rich - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries]You”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)</p>
<p>Great article! Unfortunately it is politically expedient to blame somebody and the rich are convenient targets.</p>
<p>Warren Buffet did a piece where he explained the effect of taxes on the American public. He explained that while he pays himself 10 million a year, and that he pays the exact SAME PERCENTAGE in taxes as does his long term receptionist who earns $60K a year. The scam is to count ONLY “income taxes”, and NOT all government mandated payroll deductions. </p>
<p>The U.S. “rich” have the lowest tax burden of any 1st or 2nd world country.</p>
<p>Not blaming, DocT, just wondering how to raise taxes in order to address real economic issues while inflicting least damage. We can go on not raising taxes. But even if we don’t actually see it, we experience the consequences of government borrowing.</p>
<p>As I said, I’m not interested in fairness in the way it’s been debated here. Now let’s take a family that has an income of $25k and one of 250k and one of $2.5million. All of them will pay a 10% tax. True, the richest will pay more, but the impact on each family will be quite different. For a family making $25k, losing $2.5k is a lot more consequential than for a family making $250k losing $25k, and so on. That is far more relevant than the dinner analogy. </p>
<p>So, if we need to increase taxes, how do we go about it? And if we don’t want to increase taxes, where do we cut spending?</p>
<p>Quite simply, I don’t see the need to raise taxes.</p>
<p>I agree^ no need to raise taxes. The government needs to use the tax money we sent them wisely. Democrats and Republicans are wasting taxpayers money on all kinds of needless things.</p>
<p>Waste not want not!</p>
<p>Okay. We won’t raise taxes. Which entitlement spending should be cut?</p>
<p>Let’s not forget about other forms of taxes - sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, social security tax, corporate taxes, import duties, etc. and the rich generally pay far more of these taxes as well - it doesn’t stop at income taxes.</p>
<p>^So true! Most people forget about all those other taxes. Like I said earlier we are taxed from the minute we wake up to the time we go to bed, and just like the the plant in the Little Shop of Horrors the government wants more and more to grow more and more.</p>