It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KarlG
Originally posted by Scarcer
Yes, but maybe you should note all the other bills and policies Obama is backing. Is it possible Obama is fueling both end at the same time? Oh no's!
Hm.. insecure borders, giving aliens jobs, taxes taxes taxes which leads to less consumer spending, potholed bailouts.
Oh I forgot though, to support your argument, Obama sure has invigorated the revenue of the sporting good stores! Oh wait, but hes trying to stop that too. Too bad :/
[edit on 7-7-2009 by Scarcer]
Reagan-Laffer's Theory:
High Tax Rates induce people to work for higher disposable post-tax income.
Proven by Ronald Reagan's Administration in 1981 when Arthur Laffer, working for Reagan, suggested increasing tax rates for higher government revenue. Reagan didn't want to, but he had no choice, and when the taxes were raised, an interesting phenomenon was found:
MORE people were going out to work, for longer hours, for less pay.
After a while, Laffer came up with the Laffer curve, which shows that people are more willing to work in situations of higher taxes so as to maintain their standards of living.
This resulted in the AS curve of the economy shifting right (AD-AS diagram, go google it, I'm sorry for the terminology): Basically the supply of labor INCREASED.
With this increase, and corresponding decrease in wage rates, firms could now afford to hire MORE labor, reducing unemployment and increasing economic produce and output because now it cost the firm less to hire workers - allowing them to channel $$ into production for exports (Marshall-Lerner condition: Exports and imports are in high demand in the long run).
Thus that's how rising taxes help, to a certain extent.
However, Obama needs to realize what to do with a PROGRESSIVE tax structure - i.e. the rich gets taxed progressively more because they're in a higher income bracket.
That way middle-class people will still head out to work (see the TIME magazine article weeks back featuring mothers who are re-entering the job market), but do not lose so much disposable income such that they cannot feed themselves and pay bills, the government gets the revenue they need, and the rich lose more money which is ONLY FAIR.
Let's face it, Michael Bay isn't exactly struggling to stay afloat in this economy, is he?
Originally posted by KarlG
I've done a bit of studies in Econ, and I need to discuss this with some people, because i am very confused that many people do not understand what the Obama Administration is trying to do, when it is clear to me from my textbook that they are doing what is technically right.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by KarlG
Now as far as fed expenditures not effecting citizens this is wrong as well for one the fed works on IOU also known as bonds (remember they have to create money through loans). Now when these come do they are going to pay out these loans and will likely have to create more money to again pay for it. The effect this has means as the national debt increases it happens exponentially. This debt will always have to be paid and this eventually leads them two 2 choices raise taxes of stop funding programs.
Guess which one congress will pick!
Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by KarlG
Government debt may not be consumer debt, but the money still comes out of your pocket to either pay the credit card bill or pay the tax man WITH INTEREST.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
.. because the government is known to run everything so well and so smoothy and so brilliantly that we could rest easy knowning they own the banks. Right?
Who'd run them? Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? Obama?
Those weenies got us into this mess to begin with.