I'm not rich by any stretch, but I pay a lot in taxes. I don't mind helping those not as fortunate as I am. Gates and Buffet have donated BILLIONS to the Gates foundation. They have hired staff to evaluate proposals and give their money to causes they are interested in. There are problems the govt. does not address that they think should be addressed. If they give their money to the govt., they have no control over how its is spent. I think they have a smarter solution.
me too doesn't address your supposition that they believe they should be paying more in taxes. after all, they're billionaires, they can afford it. i feel the same way i know sure....donating to their own foundations, ensuring a tax break, limiting the amount of tax they pay all the while wishing they paid more in taxes? ain't Ameica great?
By using the phrase temporarily tax cut you seem to be implying that for long term economic success higher tax rates are in order. You need only go back to the Carter years for an example of tax rates being so high they tied the economy down. Long term lower tax rates along with controlled spending (everything else being equal) means the best opportunity for a vibrant economy. Of course there's many variables that effect the economy many of which aren't manipulated by the white house or congress. The reason why I'm standing up for tax cuts is because I was debating Red's refusal to admit that tax cuts can stimulate the economy. It is clear that the Regan tax cuts played a major part in turning the economy around. I'm glad you agree that too much regulation makes the government inefficient. (I should say even more inefficient than it already is.) Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are entitled to their opinions. They are also able to write out a check to the governments for Billions if they really believed they are not paying enough taxes. What is stopping them? What makes you believe that the government can spend/invest Warren Buffet's and Bill Gates billions better than they can? Their billions of dollars is not stuck under their mattresses. That money is invested in the US economy whether it's in banks, the stock market, or in real estate. They also donate some of their money to charities. (By the way conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberals and not just the rich conservatives but also the middle income conservatives.) Why would this country be better off if those billions were given to the inefficient government? I'm certainly am not going to defend the republicans on spending. Even after excluding war expenditures the republican controlled congress has gone on an out of control spending spree. Unfortunately, now that the democrats control congress the out of control spending is worse. Once again, the problem is not on the revenue side, it's on the spending side. The weak dollar has played only a small part in the increase in oil prices when compared to the speculative future markets and the supply and demand influences. You don't see auto's made in Japan increasing in price 300% plus percent do you? If the dollar increased 100% tomorrow I doubt you would see much, if any, decrease in the price of energy. To blame the oil crisis solely on the republican party is a lie. The predicament we are in today with oil has resulted from poor long term energy planning and not due to the value of the dollar. When Clinton was in office along with a democratically controlled congress during the 90's nothing was done to create an effective energy policy. Instead Clinton vetoed a bill that would have led to the exploration of more oil in Alaska. We also need more Nuclear plants which is something democrats are mainly against. The housing market was overvalued just like the tech market was in the 90's. Both corrected themselves. The cause was liberal loan screening policies from mortgage companies and irresponsible consumers. (The ultimate responsibility and blame should be put on the consumer.) It was not republican policies. It's not all doom and gloom. Responsible consumers can now get housing loans with low interest rates and there's some great housing buys right now in certain regions of the country. Also, the low dollar value is making US made goods cheaper to the rest of the world and leading to higher exports. The economy will rebound.
For long-term economic success, tax rates need to be flexible. If the ideal is to pay just enough taxes to do the essential government work, then there will be times for the taxes to go up and a time to go down because the economy itself is widely variable. A policy of simply taxing less and then borrowing money to pay the bills is shortsighted and not viable in the long term. Not a refusal that they can be part of a stimulated economy, just that they do not drive the stimulus and that they make the deficit worse at the same time. It is a band-aid, not a vaccine. Example?
the overall standard of living and stability of an economy highly correlates to a smaller ratio of richoor. that ratio in the US has been getting much bigger. maybe i'll find some reference for this.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/letter.php here's something. "The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, devoted an entire speech this month to income inequality, worrying that it threatened "the dynamism" of capitalism. And President George W. Bush has been a critic of greedy executives. These conservatives have realized that, for all the strength of the American economy, many people feel it is chiefly the rich who are getting richer while the middle and working classes struggle to stay even. This is likely to be a big issue in the 2008 presidential election. The gap between the wealthy and the less affluent has gradually widened for decades, accelerating during the Bush presidency. "
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1 Warren, as usual, is correct. This was not my "supposition" that Buffet thought this as someone suggested, I've seen him say it on TV on several occasions.
What I am implying is that the tax cuts stimulate in the short run, but the increased tax receipts do not generally cover the new spending that govt. does. Then after all the growth is achieved from the short term stimulus, the deficit begins to grow because taxes are too low for the spending that is going on. As the deficit grows, the dollar falls in value, and inflation will come into the system. You must move to prop up the currency by raising taxes or raising interest rates (and raising rates only works in the short run). So you raise taxes to reduce the deficit, which is what Bush I had the brains and decency to do in 1992. It cost him the election, along with some other bad moves, but he fell on his sword and did the right thing, unlike his simpleton progeny. Happened in 92, happened in 01-07... Tax cuts helped in the short term, along with deregulation, falling energy prices, and measurement from the bottom of a recession to recovery. Early on, tax cuts were most important, but by mid decade, falling energy prices and deregulation were probably more important. Regarding deregulation, I also cautioned that taken too far, it allows unrestrained greed to bring high risks to the economy that can crater it for everyone. After the great depression, what did people do? Create the SEC and a bunch of banking and securities trading laws and regulations (glass steagle act). What are people going to do after the housing bubble of 2001-2006? Re regulate the banking and mortgage industries. The whole point is NOT to have a monstrous deficit, and the banana republic currency we now have. The point is not who can spend the money more wisely. The dollar has lost one half of its purchasing power against the euro in seven years, and about 40% against the Canadian dollar in the same time. That's pathetic, and it hurts every american, every day. That's why Buffet thinks the rich should pay more taxes, in order to keep the deficit low. A deficit is always managed on BOTH sides, income and expense. That is the only thing that makes sense. The dems in congress have not been helpful of late with fiscal restraint, I agree. Pelosi seems quite ineffective. When the dollar falls by 50% against the euro in seven years, it is playing a big role in energy prices for all oil that is imported. That's a simple fact. If the dollar rose 100%, oil would fall and so would gold. You mention the cost of Toyota's relative to the dollar. That is one reason they put manufacturing plants in the US, so their cars would not be totally subject to currency fluctuations. Their margins are fat, and they manage to currency fluctuations by adjusting rebates and the size of their margin. You criticize Clinton for lack of energy policy, but Bush II had Cheney chair an energy policy group in 01, and they controlled both houses of congress. They had their shot and failed. The repubs were responsible for 1% fed funds rate in 03-04, 3 years after the recession ended. Why? That is irresponsible. This allowed the banks to offer ARMs with a 3% teaser rate for two years, and it definitely was part of the problem. If fed funds had been at 4%, or anything resembling normal for a non recessionary economy, many of the unqualified would have not been able to make the payments even with a teaser at 6%, and I don't think we would have had a bubble, or nearly so big of a bubble. The dollar has been falling since 2002, yet the trade deficit grew every year, until 2007. See below. If your economy exports less (since we have offshored our manufacturing base to China), and you currency depreciates and whatever you import costs more, then your trade deficit does not fall, or at least until your currency has been pretty much trashed. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/business/main3830222.shtml
Tax cuts are a major vehicle, among others, used to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts don't always make a deficit worse. Take a look at all the major tax cuts in American history and you will see substantial revenue increases. Here's a good article regarding tax cuts: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm Sure, the recent farm bill.
The major tax cuts in history were followed by substantial increases in government revenue. We look at deficits differently. When I see a deficit I first look at government spending to see if it's the culprit. When you see deficits your first thought seems to be a tax increase is in order. A good read regarding how tax cuts effect the economy and government revenue: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm I agree. Bush II and the republican congress had their chance and failed also. The Bush administration did not force the banks to offer ARMS with a low teaser rate. As I mentioned in my previous post the banks need to be held responsible along with the irresponsible consumers that didn't do their homework. The free market is already fixing this problem. Banks are now far less likely to give loans to unqualified applicants.
