Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger
Upper-income taxpayers rejoice: one thing the credit crunch and consequent U.S. recession guarantees is that there will not be a tax increase on upper income groups at the start of the Obama Administration.Now, inquiring investors may legitimately ask, how does one justify not increasing taxes with a U.S. budget deficit trending toward $600 billion (pdf) this year, possibly on its way to an astounding $1 trillion?
Further, one high-profile campaign promise from President-elect Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was an income tax increase for those earning more than $250,000 -- with certain small business owners excluded.
Is Obama breaking a campaign promise? (Imagine, a politician breaking a campaign promise -- not exactly a revelation). From one perspective, Obama is breaking a promise, at least temporarily, so says economist Richard Felson.
"The most important problem, indeed the problem that all correct thinking public officials must address, is the recession, and that problem will require all the economic stimulus we can muster," Felson said. "An income tax increase on any group would hurt consumer demand, and demand is what we really need. So high income taxpayers are off the hook, for now."
Ditto for U.S. budget deficit reduction, Felson said. A nation should have a balanced budget over time, but now is not the time to start, as again, it would decrease demand, and demand must increase for the U.S. economy to begin to recover, he said.
"So far, many economic projections have underestimated the amount of demand taken out the system from lay-offs, stock and commodity price declines, and the bursting of the housing bubble," Felson said. "All these factors act to hinder spending, both corporate and consumer, decreasing demand, and they're contracting the economy. That has to end, so that means no tax increase for the foreseeable future, and continued, justified, large deficits, at least for a year or two."
Tax Policy / Economic Analysis: The reduction in both consumer demand and business investment is alarming, and as noted above, demand creation is the operative stance, and that means no tax increase. Further, Congress should also consider business tax credits -- particularly for alternative energy development -- where those credits will lead to job creation in the United States (not overseas) and/or also launch new sectors/industries.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-08-2008 @ 12:18PM
beanspants said...
So tax increases for the weathly hurt consumer demand more than the tax collected helps, to the degree that Obama is backing away enacting the increases promised as part of his campaign?
Haha. So the Obama administration is basically admitting that supply side/trickle down economics is true?
That's gotta be cold soup for Democrats ticked off at 20+ years of Regan's economic policies to swallow.
Me? I'd be willing to test the theory that those increases on such a small percentage of the public might help more than it hurts. But i'm not pandering to get re-elected in 4 years either.
12-08-2008 @ 1:13PM
BHarrison said...
Something for everyone to ponder: "When George Bush became President, he "inherited" the LARGEST BUDGETARY SURPLUS in American history. That was basically due to the "PAY -GO" legislation that required Congress to provide funding for any legislation that they passed.
Shortly aftter Bush's inauguartion, CONGRESS aloowed the "PAY-GO" legislation to expire (they simply did not renew the legislation as required by Law.)
CONGRESS is the most pivatol party in this economic debacle. If CONGRESS had provided the basic "oversight and reasoanble regulation" as was their fiduciary duty and responsibility, NONE of this economic debacle would have occurred . . . however, CONGRESS' actions (or lack thereof) "ENABLED" the pyramid and Ponzi schemes that defrauded the American investors, crashed our economy.
"Recovery" is not going to be possible with this gang of INCOMPETENT, and CORRUPT POLITICIANS. They promise anything and everything without any regard to the reality or practicality of any of these matters.
Obama HAD TO KNOW that initially taxing the wealthy would be impractical and impossible at the outset of his presidency . . . is he just going to be a "typical politician"?
12-08-2008 @ 1:59PM
beanspants said...
Clinton inherited a surplus, but that doesn't really mean much. It just means they turned a 'profit' for that one year, but we still had plenty of national debt (the thing Bush has increased).
Sure, the surplus could have paid the national debt down a bit, but not that much, and it was built on the dotcom bubble and not at all sustainable.
I wholeheartedly agree that Congress should have been more responsible, but why would taxing the wealthy at this time be impractical?
Should tax rates change yearly, in response to the most current budget situation (as defined by whom?) ? That seems dangerous and borderline incompetent if you asked me.
12-08-2008 @ 6:13PM
Mike said...
Re #1: Supply-side and trickle-down are not really the same thing. "Supply-side" is the notion of stimulating the economy by enticing producers to produce more, thus lowering prices and getting consumers to buy more, whereas "demand-side" is the opposite - get consumers to buy more and this will stimulate production. "Trickle-down", meanwhile, is more microeconomic than macroeconomic - it's the idea that if the rich have more money, they will use it in ways that benefit everyone, in either supply-side fashion (e.g. investment in business) or demand-side (e.g. buying expensive stuff).