The presidential election is a little less than a year away, but the nation is already weary of the hopefuls. Pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that many voters find the candidates just barely more likable than distasteful, with candidates Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani scoring 45 percent favorable/54 unfavorable and 44 percent favorable/49 percent unfavorable, respectively.
Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote: “It’s not just a matter of winning, but a question of what kind of tone will emanate from Washington in 2009. . . . Without a serious majority, the next president — whoever he or she may be — will walk into the White House hobbled. If it’s a 51-49 vote, almost as many people who elected the next president will have a stake in undermining the new commander in chief’s success.â€
68 Comments
Let’s not forget to mention that the next president will be hobbled by crushing debt that is contributing to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar – which has world-wide adverse consequences.
The Bush fostered world wide depression is at hand and remember Dick Cheney said:”Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter.” I hope that is engraved on his tombstone and not on America’s.
Let’s not forget to mention that the next president will be hobbled by crushing debt that is contributing to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar – which has world-wide adverse consequences.
The Bush fostered world wide depression is at hand and remember Dick Cheney said:”Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter.” I hope that is engraved on his tombstone and not on America’s.
Sorry for the double post, but it is a point worth making twice.
StevenHistorically, the debt as a percentage of GDP has often been higher.The current deficit has been going down for quite some time.Spending is the problem, not revenue.Federal tax revenue is at an all time high.
“Historically, the debt as a percentage of GDP has often been higher.”
That’s the same line you were feeding us five trillion dollars ago.
But even if massive tax cuts had NOTHING to do with it, that would not make what Steven said any less true.
Your script is 20 years old, Paul. You really need to learn some new material.
“”"Let’s not forget to mention that the next president will be hobbled by crushing debt that is contributing to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar – which has world-wide adverse consequences.”"”
The next President should and will have to raise taxes on the rich who have been getting away with robbery for years now. Making millions and paying only 11%. Too bad the working people cannot get that deal huh? It is time to make the rich pay!
Yes the hate will continue.
But to be fair, the Republicans started it. They are just real damned indignant that Democrats had the unmitigated gall to fight back.
Kind of early for such childishness, isn’t it?
“…the Republicans started it. They are just real damned indignant that Democrats had the unmitigated gall to fight back.”
Sounds like a “nanner nanner boo banner” taunt from grade school. Then again, that is pretty common here on this childish blog.
3dog–
Thanks for the content-free judgementalism.
*******”Without a serious majority, the next president — whoever he or she may be — will walk into the White House hobbled.”
Hmmm . . . you mean like GW who not only lacked a “serious majority,” he lacked any majority at all?
Didn’t stop him from doing whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to.
Worst.President.Ever.
The Bush tax cuts spurred long term growth in the economy. The increase in the budget deficit was primarily due to reaction to 9-11, including the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and out of control Congressional spending (that Bush did sign into law). The deficit is now decreasing. There is no world wide depression. That is simply fiction.
John Dean sums it up:
“Bush’s politics have done for good government what war does for peace, what famine does for hunger, what Alzheimer’s does for memory, what Lee Harvey Oswald did for Dallas – you get the idea. This president has done more to damage our system of government, and weaken us around the world, than any of his predecessors. Bush is America’s worst president ever, only equaled by the abetting of his partner, Dick Cheney.”
What else is new? In a democracy there are always two sides, at least. Do you prefer an election where one side gets 99% of the vote? That happens lots of places. In most democratic countries, even in our most decisive elections, there are substantial minorities who opposed the newly chosen leadership. The thrust of the blog introduction seems to be that this is bad. Even the level of incivility in our elections – which is disgusting – is nothing new, and nothing that isn’t common everywhere else that permits a robust exchange of views.
What else is new? In a democracy there are always two sides, at least. Do you prefer an election where one side gets 99% of the vote? That happens lots of places. In most democratic countries, even in our most decisive elections, there are substantial minorities who opposed the newly chosen leadership. The thrust of the blog introduction seems to be that this is bad. Even the level of incivility in our elections – which is disgusting – is nothing new, and nothing that isn’t common everywhere else that permits a robust exchange of views.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Mark–
You have replaced a reliance on facts with a religious faith in Republican economics.
The simple facts are that the national debt shot right back up to what it was before Clinton pushed it down, and it appears to be slowly rising.
See graph above.
Bush is a miserable failure at debt reduction just like he’s been at everything else–except funnelling tax-payer money to big political givers . . .
The Republican Congress spent like a frat boy with his first credit card! I knew that the current crop of “Conservatives” had lost sight of the standards of the GOP when Vice President Cheney said “that deficits do not matter”. I can honestly say that the roles had been reversed and the Republicans spent like Democrats. They took to heart the “Social” part and totally forgot the “Conservative” part of the title.
“The Bush tax cuts spurred long term growth in the economy.”
Without question, tax cuts have had a positive effect on the over all economy. The question one needs to ask is, who has benefited? Bush tax policies have been a boon to the top 10%-20%, but the rest of us?
“The deficit is now decreasing. There is no world wide depression. That is simply fiction.”Posted by: Mark | December 31, 2007 at 07:31 AM
Mark, that’s an interesting statement, as we teeter on the brink. The dollar is way down, the housing sector (one of the main engines that drives our economy) is in the crapper, Retail sales don’t look so good, and the credit market….Whatever the deficit numbers, the debt is still rising at an alarming rate.
It’s not rocket science to know we can’t borrow our way out of debt. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to pay back what we owe. There’s no way economic expansion is going to cover it.
The Bush administration has made a real mess and somebody else is going to have to clean that mess up.
With a slowdown — or even a recession — looming, things could get much worse before they get better.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123001760.html?hpid=sec-tech
“There is no world wide depression. That is simply fiction.”
Whatever
“Next president likely to be hobbled”
The weakness continues.
Dozens of states, counties and cities across the nation will enter the new year facing deep and unexpected budget holes as the widening mortgage crisis cuts sharply into tax revenue.
Elected officials, scrambling to adjust, are trimming money for public schools, reducing grants to help the homeless, even asking police to dry-clean their uniforms less often.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-budget31dec31,0,1654836.story?coll=la-home-center
Having a good heart is NOT adequate qualification for becoming President. Looking back, one could say Jimmie Carter was elected because he had a good heart. As many agree in hindsight, Jimmie Carter’s good heart was NOT adequate to permit him to do a good job.
Unfortunately several of today’s candidates have less political experience than Jimmie Carter. Remember Carter had been governor of Georgia.
I’m thinking of Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. They share virtually the same minimal qualifications: a law degree certificate plus election as U.S. Senator. None of these have served as a governor or performed any other acceptable quality of work experience or leadership.
From my perspective … only candidates Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson and Mike Huckelbee offer a responsible resume of accomplishment and personal leadership to qualify as a presidential candidate.
God forbid Hillary as Commander in Chief. She can’t manage Bill Clinton, so how can she manage our great country.
So what else is new?
The idea of a “unifying” president, with broad popular and political support, has been throughout our history mostly myth. ALL presidents face significant political opposition; in a nation as closely divided between the respecive parties as this one is now, same was to be expected, JR’s childish “you started it” – even assuming I accepted that as true – notwithstanding.
Politics has always been a contact sport, and if you think politics is especially divisive or dirty today, you don’t know much history.
There is nothing new under the sun.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: GMC70
QED by way of that cliche.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Back to the Cheney quote “…deficits don’t matter”, while I am no expert in macro-economics, I have to wonder if this statement is true, up to a point. But, once one gets sufficiently into debt, things like the troubling devaluation of our currency starts to happen. The weakening of the dollar has international adverse impacts, not just on us. Just a thought.
What is one of the first question you are asked, when applying for a loan, especially a mortage?
INCOME!
To a country, GDP is INCOME and GDP growth is “growth in income”.
The debt matters if we have no INCOME to pay it down.—-If you increase tax rates, the percentage of total taxes, paid by the “rich” will decrease.
The “rich” do not need income. They often do not even receive a “W-2″ form. The income of the “rich” is mostly voluntary, they can turn it “on” and “off” like a faucet.
By increase income taxes, you only employ more accountants, more trust attorneys, and more foreign investment experts.
By increasing income taxes, you only hurt the people who want to START new businesses, in America, and the people who would like to work for those new businesses.
Before you cry about the “rich” consider that most of the “Wealth” owned by members of the US Congress is owned by Democrats, not Republicans. Also consider that this was true even before the last election.
Take a good look at the wealthy Democrats. Tax shelters, trust funds and other, perfectly legal tax avoidance measures are easy to find, with any name you mention.
Even John Edwards, who tries to sound like a “reformer” pays himself with “dividends” from his small, closely held corporation.
Why? Because Edwards does not have to pay Medicaid or Social Security taxes on his “dividends”.
Tax the “rich” and you hurt the economy.
The only “growth industry” when taxes are too high, are the unemployment lines and the tax shelter experts.
SorryShould have said Medicare or Social Security taxes;
“Why? Because Edwards does not have to pay Medicaid or Social Security taxes on his “dividends”.
But, actually, Edwards also pays less total taxes to support ALL social programs that he says he supports, due to his strategy.
What Edwards does is legal. Edwards has some very smart advisors. We will see more tax dodgers, like Edwards, if we raise tax rates.
MoneyHawk: I noticed several blog comments above, you quoted “John Dean.” Is this the John Dean of Watergate fame?
I recall during the Watergate period in the early 70’s, sitting in a Winchell’s Donut Shop on west 75th street in O.P., Ks., I read every long Watergate transcript printed daily in the K.C. STAR.
At the time, it was clear to me the whole Watergate episode would never have happened if the waffling creatures, John Dean, as presidential counsel, and Mr. Mitchell, then U.S. Attorney General, had had the courage to stand up to the watergate conspirators and say … NO, THIS IS NOT RIGHT. This was before President Nixon learned of the plot to late to stop it.
So, in my opinion, John Dean was a traitor to America.
I agree with the original story line in that when an election is SO close that it keeps people divided into two “camps.” This is what we’ve seen in the last few elections. It is clearer, i.e. more of a “mandate” when one party wins decisively.Compounding this is that there is no real strong support for ANY of the candidates, on either side. I expect campaign rhetoric to lower after the primaries, and the two candidates will then form themselves to their party’s platforms. Then we can pick the lesser evil.
Watergate was a bad thing.Wasn’t NIXON the President then?
How, therefore, do we keep hearing the ridiculous “Worst President Ever” charge, against George W. Bush?
Which candidate resembles Nixon, the most, today?
Hillary Clinton!
I do not agree with all of these links, in total, but lots of people think Nixon was worse than W., and that Hillary is much like Nixon:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018763.php
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_randy_lo_071004_hillary_rodham_nixon.htm
Of course, Hillary DID praise Nixon for his failed “Health Care Plan”:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/whhen.htm
Furthermore, Bill Clinton NEVER got a majority vote. He came in with less than 50% BOTH times.
In defense of Nixon, I do not believe that he is our worst President, in my lifetime.
I think LBJ and Jimmy Carter are in the running for that honor.
JWink, I don’t want to drag the thread too far off-topic, but I wouldn’t putting strangling puppies past Richard Milhous Nixon. The man had some good qualities, but his whole career was one of shameless, mean-spirited corruption.
“Magruder, in a PBS documentary set to be broadcast Wednesday and in an Associated Press interview last week, says he was meeting with Mitchell on March 30, 1972, when he heard Nixon tell Mitchell over the phone to go ahead with the plan, the AP reported Sunday.
The break-in took place June 17 of that year. ”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/magruder.watergate/
John Dean participated in the criminal activities of a criminal administration, and went to prison for it. He also was the one who broke ranks and testified—truthfully–long before he knew there were secret tapes to back him up.
In judging his veracity, I would take both those things into account.
Actually, Nixon was not a bad president. He opened more colleges to blacks than any president before or since. He started OSHA, which has saved thousands of lives. He was instrumental in ending the Viet Nam war. Not bad for the “worst president ever” label.
Carter’s problem is he was too honest. Something frowned upon by the beltway.
Bush, on the other hand, has stripped environmental laws, started a stupid war, failed to protect the children of this nation, started the failed NCLB program, with its one size fits all rules. Worst. President. Ever.
Nixon did indeed do some good things, but overall, I think this sums it up:
http://altacocker.com/nixon-brain-is-bush.jpg
Paul, seeing how you supply-siders have more-or-less completely had your way in the past 7 years, I have to say, we’re still waiting for that huge spike in revenues. And we SHOULD be seeing it NOW.
It will, of course, have to be QUITE large to offset the lost revenues from taxation in the first place. And the presumption that cutting spending is the solution is CUTE–OF COURSE if you reduce outlays, the deficit will be smaller!
But that won’t make your voodoo economics any more valid.
A twist on the Reagan question: Was the middle class better off during the 1990’s? It seems to me that we were. I am not the economic expert that apparently Paul F. claims to be, but it seems to me that when a larger percentage of the population have income, real economic growth occurs. That has not the case since 2001.
I think the electorate has learned this lesson, and folks like Paul probably hope that hasn’t happened. But I think it has.
We will soon see.
Quiz time! Anybody can play!
1) Federal income tax rate cuts pay for themselves.
T or F?
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high, today, and that tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.”
Democrat Senator, and former Democrat VP Candidate, Lloyd Bentsen, on the floor of the US Senate, voting in support of the Ronald Reagan Supply-Side tax rate cuts.
(Of course, Bentsen was quoting former Democrat President John F. Kennedy.)
econ101, T or F?
PenantEvidently Democrats JFK and Lloyd Bentsen and myself say they do MORE than pay for themselves.
false
using the google for “tax cuts pay for themselves” one finds this in the first entry:
Despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs.
During the current business cycle, both revenues and the economy have been weaker than in the typical post-World War II business cycle. Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth OMB now projects for 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago when the current business cycle began in March 2001. In previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown by an average of about 10 percent over the first 5 ½ years of the cycle
Depends on which revenue you talking about and to whose pocket said revenue will fall.
Even with the tax cuts, the federal revenue has risen.
Even with the tax cuts, the revenue held by private citizens and corporations has risen.
So increased revenue is bad how?
Taxpayers don’t want the federal government to get any more revenue that it needs. Excess revenue at the federal level is just asking for more pork barrel spending.
I might point out that if it wernt for G.W.Bush one or all of you might have winessed or been killed by another terrorist attack in this country. What will the next president do when another 9-11 comes along??
Chad,Couldn’t do worse that this one did- attack a country that wasn’t even involved in it!
Yay! Three cheers for all that privately-held revenue, that most of us don’t have, and is being maintained by hundreds of billions of borrowed money every year, and hundreds of billions in interest every year on the accumulated debt! We’re RICH! Wheee!
That’s kinda like maxing out your credit cards and bragging to everyone how good you are with money.
Even with the tax cuts, the federal revenue has risen.Posted by: simple_simon | December 31, 2007 at 03:18 PM
True, but that’s because taxable income (roughly GDP) has risen.
Even with the tax cuts, the revenue held by private citizens and corporations has risen.Posted by: simple_simon | December 31, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Of course; it’s well known that deficit spending will stimulate the economy. You can cut taxes and hold spending flat: GDP should rise on the borrowing/multiplier effect.
Or you can leave taxes alone and increase spending, and once again GDP will rise. In this case, though, because you’ve left tax rates unchanged, tax revenue rises FASTER and HIGHER.
Or you can do what we’ve done, a combination of both. However, as opposed to the case where tax rates remain unchanged, we incur an opportunity cost roughly equal to the tax rate delta applied against the rise in GDP.
So increased revenue is bad how?Posted by: simple_simon | December 31, 2007 at 03:18 PM
It’s not bad, but what you seem to be indifferent to is the opportunity cost.
Taxpayers don’t want the federal government to get any more revenue that it needs. Excess revenue at the federal level is just asking for more pork barrel spending.Posted by: simple_simon | December 31, 2007 at 03:18 PM
I agree with you, in broad principle. But in you’re wrong here.
In this case, we never had a budget surplus. The lost tax income would have directly offset the budget deficit, which among other things would mean that China would now be sitting on a far smaller pile of US dollars.
And believe me, that’s a good thing.
econ101, T or F?Posted by: Pedant | December 31, 2007 at 02:51 PM
PenantEvidently Democrats JFK and Lloyd Bentsen and myself say they do MORE than pay for themselves.Posted by: econ101 | December 31, 2007 at 02:52 PM
LOL. I’d say yours is an uncharacteristically weaselly answer for a former US marine.
The answer is, as annie moose pointed out, False. Tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.
Apparently most Republics are indifferent to any opportunity costs incurred, preferring to hold their snooty noses and stand on ‘principle’ of being above cutting the deficit faster on the chance that government spending might increase — even when they hold Congress!
That, my friend, kinda puts the small “c” front and center in modern conservatism.
By the way, Greg Mankiw, Prof/Econ at Harvard and the chair of Council of Economic Advisors in Bush’s first term, agrees with me (as does an overwhelming number of professional economists who do not work for conservative movement think tanks) (for example, Andrew Samwick, a conservative Dartmouth economist, agrees with me, as does the entire Chicago School, including the late Milton Friedman).
In fact, I believe Prof Mankiw has written a widely used Intro to Econ text that compares anybody who thinks otherwise to a snake oil salesman.
And believe me, you’ll look far and wide before you find a mainstream economist who’s more Conservative than Greg Mankiw.
Stump,”Actually, Nixon was not a bad president.”
After 7 years of Bush I can certainly see how people could think that.
You want to help the poor and middle class, first you do is eliminate the income tax and replace it with NOTHING, adding Hundreds of dollars per paycheck in peoples pocket.
I’m not going to get into the lies and misconceptions reflected in this thread about how big a threat to the Constitution Richard Nixon was. He was involved from the top of all that was Watergate (remember the “Plumbers?) and there’s no way John Dean and John Mitchell “told him about it too late….” Sheesh.
It’s significant to note that John Dean, who was in the inner-inner circle of the Watergate conspiracy is appalled at how much worse the George WMD Bush administration has abused power.
As for Nixon, my mother taught me to only say good about the dead.
Richard Nixon is dead.
Good.
LibsHow about the FBI files of the Clinton enemies?How about the Rose Law Firm billing records?How about all the times Hillary said “I can’t recall” when questioned?How about all the Clinton cronies that went to jail?How about Whitewater and Castle Grande and Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan?
Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most corrupt politicians in American History.
They are yours.
That they are really, really good at being crooks, and not getting punished for it, is beside the point.
Moose and PedantYou are BOTH wrong.
Tax rate cuts always increase income.
The percentage of total tax revenue, paid by the rich, always goes UP after tax rate cuts.
The percentage of total tax revenue, paid by the rich, always goes down, after a tax rate increase.
Oh well, if you guys win, those of us in financial services will just go back to selling tax shelters.
It is actually much easier to sell tax dodges than it is produce a real profit.
Just ask the advisors, lawyers and acccountants who work for John Edwards, the Kennedy family, or John Kerry.
The hoary old boilerplate quote from JFK ignores one thing:
Just how many of you people who spout the Kennedy line would advocate the marginal tax rates he advocated?
I guess, “econ101,” when you write, “Tax rate cuts always increase income,” we should lower the tax rate to 0% so the government would be drowning in revenues.
Moose and PedantYou are BOTH wrong.Posted by: econ101 | December 31, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Yeah, me, Mankiw, Samwick, Friedman, the entire Chicago School, we’re all wrong.
LOL
Monkey, did you miss this important point:
Former Democrat VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen quoted JFK in support of the REAGAN tax rate cuts!
Of course an insurance salesman who happens to be a die-hard supply-sider knows more than the pros (that ain’t me, though).
LOL
Whatever, dude.
Those who can, do.Those who can’t TEACH.Not impressed by your list of “experts” at all.
There are many very well respected economists who agree with JFK and Lloyd Bentsen and Ronald Reagan.
Do you think resume, alone, wins an arguement?
Good heavens, next time we see a court room trial, we could save alot of money by “ranking” the law schools of opposing counsel.
What snobish bull you believe.
This is America.
There are very smart people on both sides of nearly every issue.
It is borish and assinine to claim those who disagree are simply stupid.
Didn’t I see you in a British movie, defending a bridge against King Arthur? Something about a Holy Grail?
You claimed you had only a flesh wound?
You guys kill me.
“econ101″ –
Lloyd Benson was a blue-dog Democrat in an era when there was a significant (traditional) conservative presence in the Democratic Party. His vice-presidency nomination was classic ticket-balancing just at the time when cons such as Phil Gramm and Trent Lott were switching party loyalties. Benson was in the Senate from Texas with John Tower, a simillar right-wing Democrat-turned-Republic politician.
“Cutting taxes” is a common reich wing campaign tactic because no one likes taxes. Cutting taxes of the rich to the detrement of of the middle class is routine Republic Party policy. Just when has your overall tax bill gone *down* since the Republic Party took power twenty years ago, “econ101?”
Newt Gingrich was the King of Unfunded Mandates, which *may* have lowered your federal income taxes (and only maybe, given the Republic Party’s deficits) while forcing states and localities to raise their taxes. Your out-of-pocket expense never changed and, unless you’re making $350,000 a year or more, made you pay more.
Interesting that you chose to ignore my question, “econ101.”
If you’re gonna cite JFK, can we now put you on the record as advocating the marginal tax rates Kennedy was proposing?
I belive that 0% is a fine marginal tax rate. Granted for it to work the government would need to drastically cut its budget. And for most of its history the US did fine without an income tax.
I belive that 0% is a fine marginal tax rate. Granted for it to work the government would need to drastically cut its budget. And for most of its history the US did fine without an income tax.Posted by: Tom Paine | December 31, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Not only would the government need to drastically cut its budget (I chuckled!), it would also have to default on every Federal debt instrument out there.
That, as they say, would be bad for bidness.
I think the days of doing fine without an income tax are long gone.
Hmmm, damn head cold.
Not so sure about income tax per se. I should have written that “the days of doing fine without Federal tax revenue are long gone” instead.
the income tax is only one of many sources of revenue for the government and we could survive easily without it much for the better.
…we could survive easily without it [income tax] much for the better.Posted by: Tom Paine | December 31, 2007 at 07:20 PM
How so?
“”"”The Bush tax cuts spurred long term growth in the economy.”
Without question, tax cuts have had a positive effect on the over all economy. The question one needs to ask is, who has benefited? Bush tax policies have been a boon to the top 10%-20%, but the rest of us?”"”"
Sure they have. Sales at Saks Fifth Avenue are way up. And there is no slowdown in the sales of mansions and luxury condos and vacation homes. So I guess the economy is doing really well for that crowd. For the rest of us though, different story.
What really should be done is to cut military spending alot too. We have way too big a military for the threats we face after the demise of the USSR. We could cut the military by 50% easily. And we need to rely more on things like Special Forces to deal with today’s threats. Bush invaded 2 countries unnecessarily after 9-11. 9-11 should have been handled the way Israel handled the Munich Olympic attacks on their citizens. Bush should have called Delta Force in and said “here is a list of 12 people who directed 9-11 including Ben Laden. Find them and kill them” and you can bet Delta Force would have done just that. And that would have sent a stronger message to those who need to hear it that “we ain’t f**kin around with you anymore”.
…we could survive easily without it [income tax] much for the better.Posted by: Tom Paine | December 31, 2007 at 07:20 PM
How so?
Posted by: Pedant | December 31, 2007 at 07:26 PM
Where to start, the money currently used by the income gets put into the economy either by consumer spending or saving. Average person pays 4-8000 dollars in income taxes in a year that’s money that pays for college, private school, a decent car, a really nice vacation. all without using credit or taking out loans. having a few hundred dollars a month extra income eliminates the need for many people to have to take on a extra job often a crap one at that, payday loans and cash advanced become less nessacary, you dont have to wait till you get your refund check to buy a new stove or TV so on. In a nutshell no income tax means that your paycheck lasts longer.