So, who's economic package do you like?

[Guest EricMM]

I swear I read something like this off Nader's site (whom I actually voted for due to his envirnmental policy)

 

1) Raise living wage to something like fifty dollars an hour (meaning every living soul in america would make that money, somehow, I guess through government subsidies)

2) take the minumum wage, and add fifty dollars an hour, that is the maximum wage

3) HEAVILY tax (80-100%) every dollar someone makes over the maximum wage

 

That means that the schmoe flipping burgers would make a living very comparable to the schmoe in charge of microsoft. This is not a capitalist economy. It is socialism. It has never worked, and it would not work. Why would someone work a shitty job if it didn't pay well?

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I'm going to be truthful.

 

I don't know jack crap about economics and until I do I won't try to get all opinionated about it.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Could they implement some sort of Tariff-Like system, which adds costs to investing outside of the US? I know that there would be heat from both the major companies (which recognize cheap labor, lowered environmental standards and the rest as pure profit) and groups who actually want US companies providing jobs in other countries, but I think that overall it's a real shame that companies sell out America like that.

You should read buchanan. That is his main issue for jump starting our economy.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

 

--Rob

[Guest AnnieEclectic]

I'm highly liberal but I think a mesh of the two would work better.

 

Tax cuts to the rich don't work, neither the very poor.

 

soooo upper to lower middle class should get the cuts. Focus on the median, the ones actually working, and the ones that mainly spend. To give -any- cuts to the extreme high and low ends won't work at all.

 

-Annie

[Guest DrTom]

To give -any- cuts to the extreme high and low ends won't work at all.

I'll agree with you 100% on the low end. People who don't put anything meaningful into the economy shouldn't get anything back out of it just because there's a tax cut idea going around.

 

But giving tax breaks to the very high makes a lot of sense, as long as there is incentive for them to reinvest those savings into the economy. Things like job creation, plant building, infrastructure expanding, etc, put a lot into the economy, and it's the high rollers who are in the positions to make things like that happen. They just need a reason not to build sweatshops in Thailand and tie up their money in offshore bank accounts.

 

Giving tax breaks to the middle class and upper middle class is good, too. But by excluding the upper crust, you're excluding the people who can best reutilize the money that's being returned to them.

[Guest AnnieEclectic]

That is true if you can somehow work out a semi-follproof plan of getting them to reinvest in that manner. That's the issue.

 

Having failed to work out a way to do that, my plan would be a great backup.

 

-Annie

[Guest EricMM]

I wonder how much of the "economic" talk going around now is political NOT economic in nature. A LOT of people feel that they deserve a tax break, or a $3,000 check in the mail, and would get PISSED if someone told them that investing in them wouldn't be good for America. Maybe promising lower class people money is a good way to get voted into office, not necessarily to benefit America. (Tho one could argue that getting into office that way and then doing good programs would benifit America blah blah)

 

I also fail to see how giving the poor money is going to revitalize the American Economy, considering how little the poor have to do with how it is run. They don't own businesses, they work for them. True, it's more money put into shops, and if home depot sells more, the people who sell stuff TO home depot make more, but I think that's a short term thing...

[Guest AnnieEclectic]

The main problem is if you give the poor more money, the do give that short term boost, but it doesn't last.

 

If you give the rich the money, they don't use it in ways to help the rest of society.

 

You need a way to get the cuts to affect the main buisnesses, who can pay more money to workers, who will put more back into other buisnesses. Just giving the poor the money is cutting a necessary step. You need to give the money to the people who give the poor the money so they can spend it to companies who will -continue- to pay the workers.

 

it's a circle, you just have to start at the right point.

 

-Annie

[Guest Ace309]

I swear I read something like this off Nader's site (whom I actually voted for due to his envirnmental policy)

 

1) Raise living wage to something like fifty dollars an hour (meaning every living soul in america would make that money, somehow, I guess through government subsidies)

2) take the minumum wage, and add fifty dollars an hour, that is the maximum wage

3) HEAVILY tax (80-100%) every dollar someone makes over the maximum wage

 

Nitpick.

 

Do you have a cite for that? I was pretty involved in campaigning for him on my college campus here in New ("We Always Go Democrat") York, and I seem to recall him pushing for raising the minimum wage to $7.50. The rationale for this was that the minimum wage in the 1960s, converted to today's dollars in buying power, worked out to roughly that much.

 

I'm not an economist. Please inform me if this plan will cause rampant inflation or otherwise screw the country, but it seemed reasonable to me.

 

Incidentally, I completely agree that raising the minimum wage to $50 or so would be ridiculous.

 

 

EDIT: Also, you seemed to imply that the minimum wage would be given regardless of whether someone worked. I also think that's a ridiculous proposal, if that's what he was saying.

[Guest EricMM]

Nah, I'm sure that you had to work to gain that wage.

 

I don't think the votenader or Nader2000 or whatever website it was is still up, but I promise that's where I got it from.

 

It's just one of those things that would never pass through congress anyways, so it's not a big deal. But I definitely got it off his website. I know I didn't see ANY info about if from any of his flyers that were STREWN across my college campus probably by people like you

 

I tell you, there's no better place to be during election year than a college campus Of course the politicing on campuses gets TOTALLY annoying after a year. The Jewish Clubs are always putting up graffitti/slogans dissing the palastinians and the Islamic Clubs are always dissing the Israelis. I swear they one time were vying over space in one quad for chalk drawn slogans. *shakes head*

[Guest AnnieEclectic]

That's ridiculously funny. At my college.. well... we went to class. Then... we went home. Not a busy college town. Nope.

 

However, I want to go to DigiPen, good luck on my part

 

-Annie