To improve the economy, should overall Federal income taxes be higher or lower?
Lower taxes should allow more people to actually keep the jobs in the USA and by doing so will allow secondary jobs to flourish.
@unforgivnn actually when reagen left office we had billions in debt as we do now. in order to get out of debt you don't limit how much you money you take in
@tav88 that would be great! I completely agree
Give me a tax cut and I'll stimulate the economy alright.
See how damn stupid the democrats are ! Raise the taxes and layoff more people !
I would be willing to pay more if I got to choose where 10% of my taxes went to.
We had a strong enough economy (thank you Reagan) in the 90's that the economy could withstand a raise in tax rates.
@beklaus: That would work if the economy was strong due to higher tax rates. but thats like saying it's raining because the ground is wet. it's the other way around.
@unforgivnn ok then let's go back to the rates of the Republican congress during the 42nd President's time in office. (we don't have to give him ANY credit)
@FreeHempMn: Please explain how higher taxes will necessarily set the "budget in line".
(cont) All monetary Bills originate in the House of Representatives. I love how Clinton always gets the credit for the surplus. I guess he gets credit for not vetoing the House budget...
@houstonlib: For six years (1995-2000), Clinton signed a Bill drafted by the REPUBLICAN House. Clinton's proposed budgets always ran at a deficit. The Republicans turned the surplus.
@Brian2014 conservatives have spent more on the budget since Reagan then any democrat , that's a fact! Provable!
Some of the questions do no even give the correct answer, lower taxes will make people happy but higher taxes will set the budget in line. The fair thing is to tax everyone the same! 26% across the board while business pay 28%, stop special interest money and implement term limits.
@houstonlib. While Clinton did leave a surplus he stole and ruined many government programs in the process. George Bush, while not the most conservative spender, had to deal with Clinton's legacy. Which was numerous bankrupted government programs that people who love Clinton relied on.
If we go back to the tax rates of the Clinton years that would be a start. He actually created a budget surplus that was then squandered by W.
@tav88 I agree with what you have to say, but how do you go abut doing that with the global economy the way it is?
You let people do what's in their best interest and the economy goes round creating jobs for others as they send more money making business bigger!
Screw all you "Fair" tax people. A real fair tax is a tax that inflicts the same amount of pressure on the person. THATS fair. And this question is bull $#%& of course lowering taxes would help economy more than raising them. It would just hurt helping out our debt.
VAT tax is a lot of paperwork for companies. Big ones can probably handle it, but small ones and start-ups will be driven out. The FAIR tax is better.
Lower taxes = improve economy
Higher taxes = reduce deficit (but must also cut entitlements and pork)
agreed, disband all forms of taxation and bring on a FAIR tax
The FAIR tax.
we should kill income taxes, start a flat VAT tax and raises tariffs.
Sure, give the federal government more money to blow.
USA was fine w/o income tax. Woodrow Wilson lowered the tariffs est. by Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to further his globalization agenda & made up the money by taxing income. Eliminate income tax & raise tariffs on foreign goods. What would you do with that 30% raise?
Tennessee doesn't take income taxes I don't think so idc
Stimulus will debatably speed up the economy in the short run but hurts in the long run. This is an article on the stimulus bill's negative effects: tinyurl.com/HarmfulStimulus
Government should make all companies pay taxes no exceptions.
also biz owners raise prices to cover the increased overhead passed on by other owners to correct for lost revenues due to taxes and consumers not having enough money to buy high profit items.
Less money in the local private sector causes an exponential downturn in growth. tax revenues get lower, cities can't meet budgets people get laid off, rinse and repeat.
less money at the store means less money for the business. the business owner cuts back on business expense (wages and raises) to maintain his standard of living due to higher taxes and less revenue, rinse and repeat.
taking money from the pockets of individuals and giving it to the government is a ridiculous way to spur on the economy. less money in my pocket means less money I can spend at the store.
I am currently taking MacroEconomics so all this is relatively new. So are you suggesting government intervention slows down the recovery of the economy Vs. Speeding it up? And if so where is a good source of information to back this theory up?
A recession isn't the problem. The boom before the recession is the problem and the recession is the correction meant to reallocate resources to where they belong. Attempting to soften the recession softens the recovery of the problem and requires a double dip recession.
Education will be fixed when the money is attached to the student and parents can send their child to the school where they want them. That would bring competition while still having a public education system. Schools would strive to be the best so students would bring their money to the schools.
People will get back to work when the market clears itself. This will be painful and government interaction just prolongs it. If clean energy becomes more profitable than hydrocarbons without subsidies, people will use it. But for now, it's too expensive.
@1962chevy - well said!
The tea party started because tax on tea was 5% from the king of England
I'll never understand people's willingness to be robbed in the name of capitalism
With unemployment at 9.1 (cushioned #) we need to create jobs. Why not alternative energy. If not energy then what will put people back to work?
I agree that alternative energy will come from the private sector. The Government does not create or produce consumer goods. Education won't be fixed by the private sector alone and will need Government intervention to get the ball moving in the right direction.
Alternative energy will come through private innovation when it is needed. Obviously social security need to be reformed and become optional. The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to invest in education.
We must reform Medicare and Social Security in the next 4 - 5 years to stay ahead of an already messed up economy.
I support tax cut for all while redefining the tax laws to eliminate tax loops. We also need to rein in unnecessary spending while investing in education and advance technologies. I believe we need to lead the world in creating alternative energy resource that trumps fossil fuel.
The State is the major part of the economy, even if reduced by half.
Clinton(and a Republican Congress) reined in spending. What they did spend was on infrastructure, always a solid investment. He set out to put the Internet in every classroom. Also, NAFTA has been, overall, good policy.
Bernanke admits the Fed caused the depression. Companies aren't bringing their money to the US because we tax repatriated money. Lower taxes for all and eliminate most tax loopholes while cutting spending and only helping those that need it. Also, I'm a proponent of Separation of Economy and State.
Ah Demosthenes. I appreciate your reference. And your intellectual discussion.
@Austrain - we are having a really good discussion on either tax cut or hikes. I am curious which one you choose? I don't claim to know anything and am always trying to expand my train of thought.