Economically speaking, isn't it better for economic growth to put the money in the hands of those who are productive as oppose to leaving it up to the politicians to flush it down the drain half the time?
Please explain how a tax cut doesn't help when you consider that money can only be spent, invested, or saved. Spent money increases the GDP directly, invested money means more money for business growth, with increases jobs directly, and saved money (not including money in the mattress) increases the money supply of financial institutions at least 4 to 1, giving more money to businesses, thus creating more jobs.
Furthermore, when those who receive tax relief invest that money, and that money produces profit, doesn't this mean it has effectively added value in the economy? What basis to we ever have to know if government spending has added any value?
Shouldn't the bigger issue be with the disgusting amount of wasteful spending both parties push for in Congress?
2006-07-31
08:56:48
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Marcello
2