Federal Tax Break - Stimulus Plan Poll

[jas49503]

As I said above I was talking about the individual's ability to pay. Also, the middle class spends more money and puts more of it back into the economy. The other thing I said was to put a tax break at the top for domestic investment, which would help alot of people out. If they don't like their tax rate, invest it where it will help more people instead of putting it in the hands of the government.

[GR Jackson]

With regards to tax breaks for domestic investment, what would that involve. if you bought stocks in american companies, would that qualify, or would you have to start up some sort of company? this would be a good way to encourage domestic investment because right now there isn't much incentive to do so, but it needs some clarification.

[Mark Miller]

This discussion is all well and good, but it does not really get to the root of many of the problems. And I happen to agree that blaming Bush (as I did) is not all that original, but let's face it, the reason we are in this mess has a lot to do with his spending and tax programs, among other things. And by the way, most of the democrats seem NO better.

As an aside: The only reason that Reagan appeared to be successful was that relatively huge oil reserves were discovered in the North Sea, Alaska and a few other places and helped to pump cheap oil into a system that was in failure. Now that those are dried up, we are worse off than before.

The entire system needs to be fixed. The first thing that needs to happen is that we need to reevaluate what makes for a "strong" or "good" economy. Right now the measuring stick is growth and as long as everything grows in perpetuity, then it is all good. Even though Americans are "less happy" than those in less robust nations and frankly enjoy a lower quality of life. The upper growth curve for the economy has not corresponded with a growth curve for happiness, in fact it may have been a bit of an inverse relationship.

Read Bill McKibben's book Deep Economy.

This

[john_denver]

This discussion is all well and good, but it does not really get to the root of many of the problems. And I happen to agree that blaming Bush (as I did) is not all that original, but let's face it, the reason we are in this mess has a lot to do with his spending and tax programs, among other things. And by the way, most of the democrats seem NO better.

As an aside: The only reason that Reagan appeared to be successful was that relatively huge oil reserves were discovered in the North Sea, Alaska and a few other places and helped to pump cheap oil into a system that was in failure. Now that those are dried up, we are worse off than before.

The entire system needs to be fixed. The first thing that needs to happen is that we need to reevaluate what makes for a "strong" or "good" economy. Right now the measuring stick is growth and as long as everything grows in perpetuity, then it is all good. Even though Americans are "less happy" than those in less robust nations and frankly enjoy a lower quality of life. The upper growth curve for the economy has not corresponded with a growth curve for happiness, in fact it may have been a bit of an inverse relationship.

Read Bill McKibben's book Deep Economy.

This

[Avocado]

Len Burman has a nice editorial in today's New York Times, arguing that a repeal of the Bush tax cuts would be a better way to goose the economy.

But if they were repealed in a year, the Bush tax cuts could spur a burst of economic activity in 2008. If people knew that their tax rates were going up next year, they'd work to make sure that more of their income is taxed at this year's lower rates. Investors would likewise have a giant incentive to cash out their capital gains now to avoid paying higher taxes later. In 1986, stock sales doubled as taxpayers rushed to avoid the capital gains tax rate increase scheduled for 1987. If people pour their stock gains into yachts and fast cars, that's pure fiscal stimulus.

The full article can be read here.

[oakesLife]

I'm on board with what many have already said. This stimulus package will do next to nothing for our economy. It will most likely help china's economy rather than our own. Say we go out and buy an ipod or a tv, or some new clothes, where will that money go? Overseas!! The biggest problem is the trade defecit - we may be keeping the minimum wage jobs here by buying at american retailers but the goods we buy aren't creating manufacturing jobs which is why we have such a huge gap between high class and low/middle class. Get rid of NAFTA and the WTO and start trading Fair and the entire world's economy and living/work standards will improve because they'll have to.

Also, I'm not sure it's ever been mentioned on UP but allowing our farmers to start growing and manufacturing hemp will greatly boost the ever-diminishing US textile trade and help our energy crisis. And NO - I'm not referring to pot. I'm talking about industrial hemp which is a totally different plant. Read about it: votehemp.com

[allbusiness]

Did anybody see the statistic that states that about 70-75% of our GDP is made up from consumers? Absolutely crazy; this stimulus will only dig the hole deeper.

[zenstyle]

Our "refund" would be banked. We like the idea of NOT spending it, the way our corporate and governmental masters demand of us.

We citizens are supposed to be saving money; why encourage more mindless consumerism? "Because that's what our economy is based on, silly."

What a fu

[jas49503]

Get rid of NAFTA and the WTO and start trading Fair and the entire world's economy and living/work standards will improve because they'll have to.

[oakesLife]

NAFTA if I am not mistaken stands for the North Amercan Free Trade Act which by definition enables fair trading.

NAFTA will ultimately increase the living/work standards for developing countries which will in turn redirect manufacturing back to the united states. What we need is a NAFTA for the rest of the world. unfortunately this will be very unpopular, especially in michigan, with manufacturers but is one of those no pain, no gain sort of scenarios.

[BGIII]

For example a person making 40,000 can be on the hook for 10,000 leaving them with only 30,000 to live on. Someone making 150,000 can pay 50,000 and still have 100,000 to live on. I would say they can afford it more than the 40,000 people.

[jas49503]

Unfortunately you like most other Americans are in fact mistaken. Free trade in no way suggests "Fair" trade, it's quite the opposite. Fair trade ensures good working conditions and fair pay, proper health inspections on food and goods (think China's led toy problem). The sudden outsourcing of jobs we've experienced is a direct result of the NAFTA and WTO agreements, allowing US companies to freely (not fairly) trade services and goods with poor countries to increase their bottom line. And there is as you say "a NAFTA for the rest of the world." It's called the World Trade Organization or WTO and it's no better, using much of the same language as the NAFTA agreement.

This is not simply my opinion, it is a highly controversial subject with many economists and citizens from the far left to the far right. Both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have both put repealing NAFTA and pulling out of the WTO in their immediate to-do's if they were to win the election. See the links and quote below.

Global Trade Watch

And from the Economic Policy Institute: Revisiting NAFTA "As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was

[AlexPKeaton]

Free trade in no way suggests "Fair" trade, it's quite the opposite. Fair trade ensures good working conditions and fair pay, proper health inspections on food and goods (think China's led toy problem). The sudden outsourcing of jobs we've experienced is a direct result of the NAFTA and WTO agreements, allowing US companies to freely (not fairly) trade services and goods with poor countries to increase their bottom line.

[Libertarian]

Huh, and all this time I thought fair trade is one where both parties benefit. You know, capitalism.

What you're proposing may seem nicer to the people of other countries, but ultimately making foreign labor more expensive we all lose. Economic activity is reduced, less wealth is created, people in developing countries remain poor. But hey, at least they'll have clean air!

Honestly, I don't see the outsourcing of labor as a real problem. Let the free market set the prices of goods, services, and labor.

The real problems is our government's over-spending. China is keeping they're currency low, sure, but if they weren't propping up the dollar so much the price of Chinese labor would be higher and their goods more expensive. Their currency would rise in value, ours would fall, and the trade imbalance would reach equilibrium.

[Mark Miller]

Huh, and all this time I thought fair trade is one where both parties benefit. You know, capitalism.

What you're proposing may seem nicer to the people of other countries, but ultimately making foreign labor more expensive we all lose. Economic activity is reduced, less wealth is created, people in developing countries remain poor. But hey, at least they'll have clean air!

Honestly, I don't see the outsourcing of labor as a real problem. Let the free market set the prices of goods, services, and labor.

The real problems is our government's over-spending. China is keeping they're currency low, sure, but if they weren't propping up the dollar so much the price of Chinese labor would be higher and their goods more expensive. Their currency would rise in value, ours would fall, and the trade imbalance would reach equilibrium.

[oakesLife]

Oakeslife, you sound really angry. Did you lose a factory job to Honduras or something?

[oakesLife]

This just in: Taxpayers would get checks under economic stimulus plan

[gvsusean]

No, I haven't lost any work because of outsourcing but should that make me apathetic to what is happening to others around me? Call me a Marxist or a bleeding heart but I don't think it's ok for half our countries population to be struggling to get by. Many (not all, I know) of the countries outsourcing their work are doing so not because they have to but because they want to increase there already high profits. Of course they have a right to earn more but good people don't earn off the backs of others. There is absolutely no reason why multi-million dollar companies can't pay good wages to Americans to answer calls, make clothing, build electronics, etc. As a businiess owner myself I understand the bottom-dollar issue, but I don't need to sell my soul along with my product.

Please don't confuse me with someone who wants to give money away to the poor. I certainly don't believe in living off other people's generosity, however there are way too many minimum wage workers out there who have 2 or 3 jobs just so they can afford to pay their rent and keep food on the table for their families. In our society it's just not right.

And for the record jasonsquiresdo I never said Ron Paul was an economist - I said it's a controversial subject among both economists and citizens then mentioned Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich because of their relationship to the issue.

[Mark Miller]

there is a good reason... Im going to sound like an a-hole for this... Those people aren't worth it, the have no special skills. everything they do can be done by others for FAR less. thats why the jobs are lost. Those people want to keep their their jobs then they need to make themselves more desirable, social darwinism i believe is what this is called?

[Libertarian]

I find it hilarious that people think if we erect giant trade barriers that all will be well. After doing a little research, the cheapest toaster at WalMart is a 12.00 GE brand. I guarantee the vast majority of that 12.00 is being repatriated to the US and if I had to guess probably 2.00 at most is staying overseas. You can also get an 18.00 pair of Dickies at WalMart. Again, the vast majority of that is probably being repatriated to the US(assuming it is made overseas). Could you imagine the consequences if Michigan, in all of its turmoil, were able to regulate interstate commerce to the hilt as some are asking the US to do with international trade? It would be the death blow to Michigan. The whole premise of the "United States" is to have goods freely flowing across boarders, but at some point you have diminishing returns and you have to start applying that same ethos to other nations.

Free traders will state a "Pareto Efficient" solution as the reason why free trade works. A "Pareto Efficient" solution is one where some people are made better off while no one is made worse off. This is clearly not the case in free trade. What we need to do is to take some of those huge efficiency gains from free trade and invest it towards unemployment insurance and education(say free education pre K-16/trade school). There was a very similar Economist article talking about this notion several months ago.

To stop free trade wholesale, to me, is absurd and arcane, though. Bring on the free trade agreements!

[gvsusean]

Over the course of the last few years, my company, primarily a consulting engineer, as layed off licensed engineers and professional surveyors, along with very skilled and competent CAD operators. I know of many architecture companies that have layed of registered architects.

These people have skills and they are "worth it". They are service people and not manufacturing, but this job loss is still negatively impacting our region, our state and our nation. These service sector losses can be tied back to losses in manufacturing and production, as all of this is so intimately tied together.

Now the auto industry, for years has been jettisoning employees, who worked on assembly lines and made nearly 6 figure incomes. This is true of many manufacturing entities, including televisions, clothing, candy, shoes, etc, etc. You may be able to argue that these assembly line types were over paid and as a result they lost their jobs, but again they are worth something.... and do have specialized skills.

But really, social darwinism? The playing field is not level and growth and profit supercede EVERYTHING, including our children's safety as it relates to toys tainted with lead made in countries that have no regulations!!

The big view of this, is that we (USA) could not compete in manufacturing. But again, there are a lot of things stacked against us that do not allow us to compete. Unfair trade laws, stringent environmental regs (I am not saying this is bad) and to an even larger extent the fact that we as consumers want the BEST deal.

Would you buy a hand assembled Dualit toaster made by highly skilled craftsman for $300 or would you buy the $12.00 toaster made by 10 year olds in southeast Asia?

Would you buy a pair of Bill's Khaki chinos made by Americans for $125 OR would you buy a pair of chinos at Walmart for $25 that were put together in a sweatshop in East Beijing?

We have outsourced these things because most Americans are not going to spend the large bills to get something, when they can get the "same" thing for much less. Remember that in America, quantity is quality. We do not take into account that the Dualit toaster is a beautifully crafted, well built, high quality object and the Walmart toaster is a piece of crap that gets chucked in a landfill 5 years after purchase. It doesn't matter. Same with TVs, IPODS, children's toys, etc.

And when we are saving that buck on purchasing all this crap, then we have no one to blame but ourselves because at the end of the day, all these cheap prices come at a cost, a very, very high cost. And now the bills are coming due and we don't like what we see. And we don't like the ramifications, that we have become a country of consumers not producers.

Again, the only way to fix this, is to begin to recalibrate everything that is not working. We can either do it now, or we can put it off and wait for it to become completely derailed.

[GRDadof3]

I think we may be trailing a bit off topic.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[john_denver]

I think we may be trailing a bit off topic.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[twoshort]

Is it a separate rebate check that we will receive besides any tax refund?

[john_denver]

Is it a separate rebate check that we will receive besides any tax refund?