Question Of The Week, 10/8/06
Good morning. I didn't have to look long at all this morning to come up with an idea for this weeks question. In an October 6, 2006 press release President Bush said, "And one way to do so is to make the tax cuts we passed permanent. One sure way to hurt this economy is to take money out of the pockets of consumers, or small business owners, and send it to Washington, D.C.". This weeks question of the week is. Has the Bush tax cut helped or hurt our economy, should it be made permanent? I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
posted by David Schantz | 2:07 AM
12 Comments:
I'm always on favor of tax cuts. The feds need to tighten their belts. My belt is already squeezing me too hard.
Both hurt and helped.
It has helped to a certain extent in infusing capital into a sputtering economy, but it would be naive to say that the tax cuts alone are responsible for the upturn in the economy.
The problem is that they were not coupled with spending cuts. The long term effects of the tax cut without fiscal restraint will be felt for decades.
They should only be made permanent with an accompaning balanced budget law.
Bring back Pay-Go!!!
It has helped our economy overall but disproportionately it has helped the upperclass.
Praguetwin said...They should only be made permanent with an accompaning balanced budget law.
I would agree with this if the balanced-budget law was made first.
Also..I know this isn't popular with most Republicans but we need to raise the minimum wage so that people working 40 hour weeks aren't under the poverty line.
It would take a lot of tough choices to do both.
I'm wondering if "always on watch" benefitted from the Bush tax cuts?
It sounds like she didn't.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>
Is there a correlation between corporate tax rates and the health of a country's economy?
Maybe...
Tax Rates Around The World
US and Canadian corporate tax rates are almost the same...do we raise them to help pay off the deficit? By raising corporate tax rates, do we run the risk of losing companies to countries like Germany where the corporate tax rate is 25%?
Maybe hold those rates as is and cut individual tax rates only if you make under a certain amount...extra money almost always get pumped back into the economy.
I don't know, I'm just being an arm-chair economist here...
First I want to thank everyone for stoping by to answer this weeks question. Like AOW, I'm always in favor of a tax cut. I've heard many say that tax cuts only help the upper class. I figure that will trickle down. It's the upper class that owns/runs the businesses that the rest of us work for. Some of what they save through the tax cuts should be used to create more jobs or increase wages. So I'll say yes to both parts of the question.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
My Dad doesn't own any businesses or employ any workers...he is in the top one percent because of stocks and bonds that he inherited...he did quite well by the Bush tax cuts, but feels guilty, since, of course, no one benefits from his windfall except our family!
Elizabeth,
So long as your family keeps investing and spending that extra money, it helps the system.
Elizabeth,
I'm wondering if "always on watch" benefitted from the Bush tax cuts?
It sounds like she didn't.
Actually, I did to a certain extent. But I've never been "a high roller." Also, the local increases in real-estate taxes and the increase in health insurance (the latter not a tax, of course) ate up the cuts.
Mike, thanks for making me feel better! I'm going to go out and buy another pair of Italian made shoes now!
Post a Comment
<< Home