Every Walmart worker would get 100% of their paycheck to spend as they wanted. Any stock investments would be 100% tax free until they cashed them out and bought something with them.
Totally missed the point.
The lower class is paying no income taxes. They would continue to pay no income taxes. The middle class would get their whole paycheck to invest. This promotes business and creates economic prosperity.
It's simple, Russian (koch) Style Blackmail coupled with a Chinese Fire Drill (market/media distractions).
We would need significant spending cuts to the federal budget but there would be no need for a deficit. What is amusing to me is that a deficit has absolutely never been a problem for you as long as the Democrats were running it.
I'm not supprised you found someone toeing that line in an article that supports keynsian ecconomics. It's also amazing the contradictions in that post with a lot of other things left wing folks in America say.
"Business-Cycle Economists further argue that it’s important to bear in mind that in a dangerous world like ours, it’s always safer not to spend money than to spend. And so, when times are tough, people don’t take chances. They hang on to their cash. This makes recessions even more severe and is consistent with the idea that interest rates are of little concern to firms or consumers in the midst of a downturn.
Business-Cycle Economists thus see economic downturns as a much more fundamental problem than Establishment Economists and one that will not fix itself. What can we do? For one, when the private sector is too scared to spend, we can have the government do so instead. The United States was the only nation to undertake a stimulus program on the scale of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While Business-Cycle Economists think that it could have been better planned and focused, they nevertheless see this as a major reason that our economy has recovered much more substantially than those in Europe.
Second, Business-Cycle Economists are strongly in favor of a more even income distribution, closer to what we had several decades ago. We need people to spend, not save. This means strengthening the middle class because they are the real job creators, not the wealthy. This will in turn make recessions less frequent and less severe.
Third, they view the current level of competition in the non-financial and especially financial industries as inadequate. Under capitalism, the ideal is what economists call consumer sovereignty. What that means is that firms are so competitive with each other that they are forced to please their customers or die. Consumers become the sovereigns, so to speak. But, since the relaxation of antitrust regulations in the 1980s, we have been witness to increasing levels of monopolization. This has shifted the balance of power away from those who should really be determining the direction of our economy, i.e., the consumers, and it has created an anti-democratic concentration of power. This trend must be reversed if we are to create a healthy and profitable environment for consumers and entrepreneurs."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2016/02/22/evaluating-the-evaluators/3/#1cda71ff204b
WTF does that have to do with the bet revenue from the capgains tax? Nothing!
I haven't heard any mention of a 0% tax. I may be in favor of that, depending on who was managing it. If the tax were zero, it wouldn't be the IRS.
you are retarded.
I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality
I just had a conversation with someone who described themselves as conservative, thought that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and would be bad for the country and felt that the government spent too much money on social programs.
I wish I were afforded the same respect your friend gave to you. It begins to feel very one sided when I provide objective evidence to back up the things I'm saying and it's countered with anecdotes and political bias. But I agree with you, and the fight continues..
It's the 80/20 rule at work; twenty percent of the effort, applied correctly, is generally successful at getting 80% of one's total results.
Why do you continue to support regressive tax codes when you've been repeatedly shown the opposite grows the economy faster when in recessions/depressions?
....even to his own detriment, because I'm willing to bet he's in an adversely affected tax bracket.
Of course he is, most Americans are which makes even less sense.. That thread by bearkat he posted earlier 'I was poor, but a GOP die-hard: How I finally left the politics of shame' shows a good example of that kind of mindset. It took that guy until he was in his 40s to figure out who was actually screwing him. It's kind of ironic these guys rally against the government, but only when it's blue... They blame one side of the establishment and not the structure that it's all built on
Then they need to be voted out of office. If it takes a revolution to restore citizen democracy in this country, then that's what it takes.