Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 13:39
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,707
Both McCain and Obama are on a populist tax cutting binge. No one likes to pay taxes, but they are a cost of living in a civilized society. In fact many taxes facilitate economic progress (business growth). For example infrastructure improvements, such as roads which allow customers to visit businesses. Tax paid education also provides an educated workforce. (Yes are schools are in trouble.)
From the free-market perspective, both candidates seem to be blind about the implications of their tax positions.
Both candidates advocate that cutting taxes on business will facilitate economic growth. If we assume a balanced budget, cutting taxes on business only means that someone else has to pay the taxes, which means that they have LESS money to buy. So there is no economic benefit.
Both candidates advocate that taxes need to be cut to foster "economic growth". Yes, cheap money does foster economic growth. The experiment of low interest rates and easy mortgage credit has imploded into failure. Cutting taxes will foster economic growth, but it won't be sustainable since our national debt continue to explode. Eventually our debt will squelch "economic growth".
Both candidates advocate that taxes need to be cut to allow business to hire more employees. This misses a fundamental concept of the free market system. Business can only expand if there is unmet demand. Let's take Joe the plumber (a hot topic) for example. Only so many plumbing opportunities exist in his city, cutting taxes will not magically break toilets thereby creating plumbing work. True, for some businesses, like beer, there may be bottomless demand but then you may not need to hire anyone since beer making is highly automated.
Politicians love to say how they make "hard decisions", but neither candidate has really addressed how they will balance the budget. (In fact Obama side-stepped the question of cutting expenses by mentioning motherhood programs that should receive additional government funding!) Seems to me that both candidates are simply trying to outdo each other in offering us Herbert Hoover's "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". Too bad the American public believes this fairy tale.
From the free-market perspective, both candidates seem to be blind about the implications of their tax positions.
Both candidates advocate that cutting taxes on business will facilitate economic growth. If we assume a balanced budget, cutting taxes on business only means that someone else has to pay the taxes, which means that they have LESS money to buy. So there is no economic benefit.
Both candidates advocate that taxes need to be cut to foster "economic growth". Yes, cheap money does foster economic growth. The experiment of low interest rates and easy mortgage credit has imploded into failure. Cutting taxes will foster economic growth, but it won't be sustainable since our national debt continue to explode. Eventually our debt will squelch "economic growth".
Both candidates advocate that taxes need to be cut to allow business to hire more employees. This misses a fundamental concept of the free market system. Business can only expand if there is unmet demand. Let's take Joe the plumber (a hot topic) for example. Only so many plumbing opportunities exist in his city, cutting taxes will not magically break toilets thereby creating plumbing work. True, for some businesses, like beer, there may be bottomless demand but then you may not need to hire anyone since beer making is highly automated.
Politicians love to say how they make "hard decisions", but neither candidate has really addressed how they will balance the budget. (In fact Obama side-stepped the question of cutting expenses by mentioning motherhood programs that should receive additional government funding!) Seems to me that both candidates are simply trying to outdo each other in offering us Herbert Hoover's "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". Too bad the American public believes this fairy tale.