Another Trillion $$$ Stimulus?

But we can repair old stuff, build new stuff and maintain it, we just aren't doing it. Hell, we had the chance when Obama got his trillion $$$ stimulus, but he decided to funnel much of that money to his union & green energy cronies.

 

I'm not as up to speed as you seem to be on the concept of a land value tax and I'm not arguing against it. I'm simply looking at the realistic aspect of it being implemented at this point to fund a stimulus for infrastructure since I can't every remember hearing it proposed or debated politically on a national level. So politically, it would be a difficult task to propose a new tax, especially one that involves a new tax on property owners, to fund a "one time stimulus" which will no doubt be advertised as an urgent need. And besides, one of main reasons we even have a gas tax is to fund infrastructure, so politically, the funding mechanism is already in place. All politicians need to do is convince folks it needs to be raised. Piece of cake compared to introducing a new funding measure.
Again, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying land value isn't the right way to fund this, I'm only pointing out how I see the process working in our current political environment.

 

We should have done this three years ago when the first stimulus expired. The austerity we've been under has hurt the recovery.

But it doesn't make any sense to pay for it with a regressive gas tax, unless your goal is to make the richest richer and the poorer/middle classes poorer. Then your just taking money that would be spent on other things.

 

I'm sure that is how it is being presented in conservative circles. Put the tax burden on the people who can least afford it.

 

Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare and promotes the general prosperity through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

Taxing people for what they use.




​

 

Absolutely. And the other side of this is an increased tax on fuel is a direct reduction in available money in the economy to buy the very goods and services we're trying to find buyers to demand in order to increase both production and employment. We can't further tax people and expect the result to be stimulatory. People need more money in their hands, and how we get there is up in the air, but taking any money away from the people who generate demand is just self-defeating. Cheap oil is not an excuse to take the surplus (from fuel) people are feeling and suck it up in a tax, but so many people don't understand the effects of taxation on demand in an economy. And once oil shot back up, why would they think the tax would just be taken back off? That never happens so we'd be put in a much worse situation than we're in today because a tax increase harms all buyers economically.

We're in a very tough spot. Everyone says to pay for new things with money from defense, entitlement or whatever. But that's the exact same effect as taxation in regards to taking from one part of the economy and giving to another. It's a net zero result so there's no economic gain by doing so other than to distribute the money to different parts of the economy. One part wins while another loses. We have to get to a point where we afford what we've budgeted, we add to what we buy in terms of more requirements, but we do it with increased tax revenue that results from more people being employed and paying taxes from their new/higher income. But until we get there we have to jump start it through some sort of stimulus that will be at a deficit to the federal government. There's just no other way to pay for it, and the risk of doing it is enormous if it fails, while the risk of doing nothing may be worse. I don't have the answer, but it's easy to see what won't work.

 

Public highways are a general good that benefits everyone and businesses and the economy.

Taxing the poor continues the "trickle down" economics of redistributing more and more of the nation's income and wealth from the poorer/middle classes to the richest.

Because of heaven's sake, the 1% getting about 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough, is it?

More is never enough for some.

 

Depends on who is taxed.

Tax the poor/middle class folks, who have already seen their portion of the nation's income fall from 65% to 50% since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, has the effect you describe: Less money is spent by the people who spend money in the economy. The money is spent by the Govt, ending up in, at best, a wash.

Tax upper income folks who would otherwise stick the money in offshore accounts or wherever where it is not being spent in the the economy, and the increase spending by the Govt ends up with an overall gain in demand and economic activity.

 

Right. I was responding to the OP idea of a further tax on fuel. My response wasn't very clear in that regard.

 

No one is taking more of the nations income, because nations don't have income. Income is the credit we give people for contributing to the economy, voted on at the cash register by what we choose to pay for that contribution.

We don't tax people for how much they take from a common resource with income tax, we tax them for how much they contribute to the economy.




​

 

The nation's income is the sum of all incomes in the country. And when you increase the tax that the poor/middle class pay but not the rich like you conservatives like to do you are continuing the "trickle down" trend that started big time with the Reagan revolution:

 

It's equal to the sum of contributions people made to the economy. If there is a disparity in what people have put into the economy, you don't fix it be redistributing credit for past contributions.





​

 

I brought up the gas tax because that's what 60 minutes highlighted for funding. Personally, I'm not enamored with it, but after I thought about it, it does seem to be an fairly easy way politically to sell a huge spending package.

 

I'm sure you're correct, but 60 minutes didn't delve into how conservative or liberal circles would approach the issue other than showing a clip of Trumka pushing the idea in a congressional hearing.

 

If we are not doing it, it is because we couldn't do it, at least not in the face of other priorities. If you want high speed rail, there is no need for as many roads and bridges, for instance.

 

The fallacy is the supposition it is distributed based upon contribution.

- - - Updated - - -

That may be true. It's easier for politicians to (*)(*)(*)(*) the poor and middle class than nibble at the hand that feeds them.​

 

Yeah, that money is coming back. The Chinese are buying up huge chunks of the U.S. It's our sovereignty that isn't coming back. But that's the way Republicans want it.

 

It's the responsibility of everyone who makes a purchase to evaluate the contributions of others and negotiate a reasonable distribution of their own credits when they choose to make an exchange. That collective evaluation is about as fair as it gets.




​

 

It's far too late to be concerned about the infrastructure. Just to restore what is already in place is going to cost multiple $trillions. I suggest everybody buy an ATV with pontoons.

This is what happens when people don't maintain their own house or, to put it more colloquially, when people (*)(*)(*)(*) in their own nests.

 

Yep, my point exactly.
At least at the local level here, when politicians want to fund big projects via raising taxes the issue they're forced to put it on ballot for the citizens to vote on. Sometimes it passes, sometimes not, but at least the ones effected are given a chance to vote for approval or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, my point exactly.
At least at the local level here, when politicians want to fund big projects via raising taxes the issue they're forced to put it on ballot for the citizens to vote on. Sometimes it passes, sometimes not, but at least the ones effected are given a chance to vote for approval or not.

 

The 60 Minutes piece about the bridges was spot on about how our infrastructure is falling to beglect becasue of poltiicl bickering. yes a stimulus may be possible if that stimulus focused only or primarily on our roads, bridges, railways, and sea ports. In fact, it can be linked to a job bill that may be the solutino to kick start the job growth again. what will need to happen is to forget about the partisan politics that blames unions, minoirities, immigrants, and other groups for all of our ills. and we may need to raise taxes oto allow this type of stimulus to be passed early next year.

 

so the almost 400 Billion in tax cuts and holidays was wasted? I thought that was the right's economic panacea?

 

Why bother making investments to maintain global competitiveness?

Why bother making investments in the nation's future economic prosperity?

Seems many americans think that the richest nation in the history of the planet simply can't afford it, but think that $700billion a year in defense spending isn't enough.

As American political shortsightedness increases, its no wonder that the generational planning inherent in Chinese culture is such an increasing economic and political threat. (they are spending 10 x what the US does on Foreign aid, much of it in the form of .... infrastructure spending on roads, dams, bridges, ports etc in Africa, South America and Asia.)



).

 

Spot on might be a stretch, but the piece did make a pretty reasonable case for addressing the issue, soon.

Agree. In fact, that's exactly how envision the debate. First they'll establish reasons for needing to address the situation and then they'll highlight "job creation" angle. The real debate will be how to pay for it and the details of allocation.

Partisan politics always plays a role in our system, so that's a given. And I don't think anyone's in the mood for an unfunded stimulus, especially one the size of what's needed. So yea, I don't know how they fund it without increasing taxes, and I think politically the easiest funding avenue is raising the gas tax. They may need to limit it to ten years to get it passed, even though we all know at the end of ten years they'll just make it permanent.