Comments for Not Just Tax Increases, but ANY Deficit Reduction Will Cost Jobs at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 18 May 2013 08:01:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19681 How will reducing taxes on small business owners improve the economy when their customers are unemployed, underemployed, or are so concerned about their job security that they don't want to spend any money. It would make more sense to start stimulus spending to improve our infrastructure (improve public transportation for people squeezed at the pump, build public parks/gyms to help bring down obesity, install fiber optics for faster Internet, upgrade gov technology so workers can be more productive), hire unemployed people into temporary jobs with 3-5 year terms with benefits, and pass legislation to make the entire country a for cause employment country. All finance/banking companies with government subsidies that issued mortgages and students loans should be asked to make payments more affordable or risk losing their government subsidy. The people that don't qualify for the loan forgiveness should get tax credits or stimulus checks. - Jay Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:46:42 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19679 I have long though that it would be good to have an estate tax rate that reaches 100% at some point. Yes we let the Richie Rich's of the world keep most of their money, but why do we let the Richie Rich, Jrs. of the world be given 10's of millions of dollars for really doing nothing? Aren't we encouraging them to keep on doing nothing instead of going out and being productive citizens? So pick a number -- $5 million, $50 million, $100 million -- something and beyond that the estate tax rate is 100%. Either per estate or per legatee/devisee/beneficiary. I remember a business magazine about 5-6 years ago which had a cover story entitled "Die Broke". It suggested that you leave your children $1 million (or some such number) each, and that you spend or give away the rest while you are still alive. Same idea as a 100% estate tax rate. To their credit Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have advocated something very similar. - Ethan Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:14:48 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19678 If real spending on goods and services stays the same, and taxes are reduced, while transfers are reduced, there is little effect. This is the problem with deficit folks, confusing transfers and spending, which are of course not at all the same. Government spending, say paying someone to build a highway, is different than transfers, say paying someone on unemployment. Similar to "confusing" health care with health insurance. Casual slip of the tongue here and there to prove a point. So if spending is reduced, then that might have a negative impact on the economy. Tax increases per se are not an issue since they are offset by decreased borrowing. - pete Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:41:23 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19675 [quote]This is sort of like pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at someone's head. Presumably this is not done unless the desire is to see the person dead.[/quote] I laughed out loud after reading this. Very well put. - JSeydl Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:41:30 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19674 Bundled into the expiring Bush Tax Cuts is the expiration of the reductions in the provisions of the Estate Tax which will fall from affecting estates of over 5 million down to 1 million with the rates rising from 35% to 55% for the portions of the estates over the exempted limits. Boomers are not only retiring but they are also dying. The vast wealth of the Boomers should have been taxed heavier to leave Social Security and Medicare more financially sound along with more money for infrastructure and education. Since the Boomers collectively didn't pay their full share and have left us with a far worse infrastructure than they inherited, it's only fair that those whose die wealthy should pay back some of the excess profits they collectively reaped. Letting the Estate Taxes rise has the least impact on Demand of all tax increases. Guess that's why we've not heard much from the Death Tax crowd of late. - Robert Salzberg Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:21:48 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19673 If we institute a financial transactions tax, FTT, of say 0.1% and use the money as a new dedicated funding source for establishing and funding a National Infrastructure Bank, the net cost in jobs due to the FTT should be dwarfed by the jobs creating by spending on infrastructure. - Robert Salzberg Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:10:24 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19664 Before clicking on the link, I guessed Lori Montgomery. Do I win something? - Bart Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:51:46 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/not-just-tax-increases-but-any-deficit-reduction-will-cost-jobs#comment-19663 We want to create jobs in our domestic economy. If we tax money that the wealthy are using to purchase labor overseas and instead spend that money on domestic labor for public goods and services, it will create a net increase in domestic jobs. If there is a multiplier effect greater than 1, then it makes sense to increase taxes on the upper incomes but put the money to job creation rather than deficit reduction for the short term. - bakho Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:59:11 +0100