Originally posted by Eagler
point is todd, I was suggesting most of the unemployed vote democrat
[/B]
You'd be right. There's a strong relationship between income and partisan affiliation.
why does someone who pays ZERO taxes deserve a "TAX" refund of MY money???
[/B]
This is where you're wrong. See my post to Toad above -- a payroll tax cut would involve slashing the SS contribution rate of lower income individuals. Unless this coincides with an increase in your payroll tax, it's not your money being refunded.
hand outs, pure and simple, as soon as they blow the couple hundred bucks (MY $$$) on booze and smokes, they'll be standing around looking for the next dumcrat hand out, instead of looking for a job and carryin their own weight.. all the while diggin into the pockets of those who could produce the jobs needed for the very ones who are standin around waiting for the next freebie ... is that clear enough for ya?
[/B]
Think hard about this now. You're wrong on a number of counts.
First, the payroll tax cut only benefits
those who already hold jobs. By its very definition, a payroll tax is a tax on the
payroll. If you're not on a payroll, you don't pay it. If you're not on a payroll, you don't receive the benefits of a payroll tax cut. How does this in any way encourage joblessness?
Second, jobs don't appear out of thin air. Even if you provide money to wealthy individuals or firms in the form of tax breaks, they won't produce items or increase employment
unless aggregate demand increases. If the public demands 20,000 cars, how would producing 25,000 cars benefit the economy? All it will do is drive down prices and earnings, and it would result in layoffs to meet the equilibrium supply and demand level. If, on the other hand, you increase demand to 25,000 cars, corporations will hire the people necessary to produce that many.
Third, even
if lower income workers spend all of the extra money on smokes and booze... good! This increases the demand for smokes and booze, and it creates new jobs in the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries to meet the increased demand. Result: The economy improves.
If you think Dashole (thanks Udie) makes sense, there's no sense in talkin to ya
[/B]
His proposal is economically sound, even if it's more motivated by politics than fiscal responsibility. I've heard this proposal batted around in the last few months, and numerous economists and former Treasury Secretaries support it. I think that, coupled with corporate tax relief and low interest rates, it would go a long toward helping the economy.
edit: ok it seems he wants MY SS to pay for theirs, sheesh its a freakin shell game... make em carry their own weight, like the rest of us. Period.
Your SS won't pay for theirs unless their payroll tax cut is offset by a proportionate increase in your payroll taxes.
-- Todd/Leviathn
