I have noticed both candidates keep pressing on tax cuts for their target audiences. Americans have been living on a credit based society for years, are deep in debt as a society and have been borrowing from their grandchildren. Their economy is headed for a certain collapse.Their manufacturing basis is gone, basic education and health care sucks and will affect innovation and progress in another 15-20 years in extreme ways. They don't seem to care about their society's health or education or future. Only about tax cuts. Who do they think is going to pay all these bills?
Most Americans don't think about paying off that bill, haven't you noticed? As an aside, tax cuts aren't inherently good or bad. They just need to be used properly. Adding them onto the biggest spending budget in history or having tax cuts in times of war? Not proper use. You have to be willing to shrink government if you want tax cuts.
It seems odd to me that both candidates would propose tax cuts instead of saying: Look guys, its not possible if we want to keep the economy afloat, fuggedaboutit. If both of them said it, it would create an impact. But every one seems to float a populist agenda, rather than responsible governance. One more point I realised. All the plans that Obama and McCain are proposing? Where is the money for that?
When the current Federal income tax was started, the word income was used to mean business profit not wages or salary. Then over time the government (sneakily? underhandedly?) expanded it. Income "tax" doesn't go to the government so it makes no difference in the federal budget.
So the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then why do people pay taxes to them? And how can the government reduce or increase the taxes?
The US government does via the IRS. I'm not sure what Stranger is talking about. The Fed operates independent of Congressional funding.
Not really, no. It's board of governors are chosen and dismissed by the President and the Senate, but that's about it. There's no oversight and the Fed doesn't have to come to Congress for permission to do something.
Thanks. What would happen if both candidates were to tell the people that not only will they not get tax cuts, but everyone will be taxed more as the debt has to be paid?
I'm not sure what Stranger is talking about but I know I'm right & there's no need to (re)check anything.
Studies show that when you cut taxes revenues to the federal government actually increase since more people are willing to actually pay the lower rate.
The government forces people to pay it & 99% of people don't know where it goes. The government makes the laws not the Federal Reserve. Add up all the taxes, fees, whatever the US Governments take in & it's probably less than 3% of what they spend. Obviously they can do without taxes.
Indeed, Our Prime minister actually got more votes by promising to spend less, and now that he's changed that. To adapt to growing circumstances. I don't know enough about him to make a clear judgement, but he pretty good in balancing election promises and trying to fix the economy.
It is a candidate's job to say what people want to hear, regardless of their capacity to take it to action or not.
Since when? Its a candidates job to present his ideas for governance and the people's job to select the one they approve of. Why would anyone select someone who had no idea what the job is?
Since always. Saying what people hear is all they have ever done. You can just take everything that they both say, and let it come in through an ear and out through the other.
Good topic, I never really thought about it. With tax cuts, individual and corporations will have more money to be saved or to be spent. If they spend it on investment, naturally the additional investments will create more tax, and so government can collect more revenue from new tax. According to Wikipedia, three idealised scenarios can be hypothesised:
