Which is better, tax cuts for the rich or zero debt for the country?

Question

I'd say zero debt equtes to a strong dollar which is as good as or better than a tax cut.

What do you think?

- equates - (above)

Micheal (below) How does giving money to 100,000 super rich people help the economy?

Middle class Americans by the lion's share of goods. Agree or no?

- buy - (above)

Tucson (below) Greed drives them to pull an Enron, nothing more. They don't start businesses with tax cuts. They open overseas accounts or buy a more expensive diamond.

I'm not knocking them for it as it is theirs to do with as they please.

allright Mike (below) I see that you are a true believer in the rich and their production. It takes a consumer base to drive production, not the other way around. You can "produce" a billion TVs. If no one buys them you've just wasted a ton of capital. Consumers are the backbone of capitalism. The middle class is America's consumer base.

Tucson (below) Take a deep breath. Hold it. Now exale.

The expansion you speak of is consumer driven. If people don't buy (middle class), businesses don't expand. If the do expand without consumer support, they won't stay in business long. Agree or no?

Answer 1

Zero debt is far more better than tax cuts for the rich.

We have a 8.8 trillion dollar debt...and 20% of the federal budget is used to pay the interest on it.

Answer 2

Is it better to borrow to start your business, or save?

If we all had to save to start our businesses, few of us would have jobs today.

Deficit spending is borrowing to invest in the economy (such as when both Bush Jr. and Reagan gave tax cuts during recessions). Not borrowing strengthens the dollar, oh yes. But there is no growth, no new jobs, and, usually, recession or depression. That's why when the economy is good, interest rates rise, and when it is bad, they fall.

The Federal Reserve knows borrowing is necessary to grow an economy, as it is with any business.

The key is knowing how much to borrow, and when.

When Bush increased the Child Tax Credit from $600 to $1000 per child (retroactively, I might add), I took that extra $1600 and SPENT IT. So did a lot of other people. That meant more products were consumed, more were built, and more people were employed. And, of course, I had some new toys (or, less personal debt). And, as always, we are definitely NOT the "rich".

This action was a "tax cut", and a direct investment in our economy by the government. It increased deficit spending, but we emerged two years later from the recession.

Hey Chi: Property tax, income tax, or consumer tax (sales)? Which is best and why? I'm curious what you think.

Answer 3

One leads to the other. Tax breaks for the rich equals a growing economy. Rich tend to own businesses, which employ people. When the rich have money, greed drives them to make more, which drives them to expand business, which drives them to hire new employees, which means more people in the taxable pool, which means more government income. Why do you morons assume that when the rich get money, they put it in a big vault and sit on top of it, wringing their hands and laughing maniacally at how they screwed the common man. Plus, income tax is unconstitutional anyway, so your argument is pointless.

Every goddamn time its Enron. Ok, so you have a single example in the literally thousands of multi-million dollar companies that employ regular Americans like me. Christ, the same tired arguments every ten minutes. And I didn't say open a new business, I said expand the one they have. I work for a major corporation and got my job due to an expansion of their manufacturing department, so my income is a prime example of how more money in the hands of business owners leads to more money in the pockets of the middle class, which leads to more money in the pockets of welfare recipients, social security checks, and government pork.

Consumer driven, yes, but a company can easily gain a wider consumer base by diversifying their products. Lame example, but why do doritos have ten thousand frickin flavors? To appeal to the widest amount of junk food losers possible. They need employees to run the machines to spray the "flavor dust" on all the varieties, hence the expansion of business. Its consumer driven, but only when the consumer now has something new to buy from said company. Chicken and egg scenario.

Answer 4

This country's economy is based on debt. Everyone makes such a big deal of it, but if it weren't there our economy would collapse

I am not rich but what is the problem with a tax cut for them?

The top 5% pay over 75% of the taxes collected in this country, They start the businesses you work for, they invest in business, they deserve a break.

The bottom 30% of wage earners pay no tax at all.

Answer 5

Your question is stupid. You should ask are entitlement programs for people too lazy to work good for the country or zero debt. Last time I checked our tax code was heavily tilted towards the poor. How many rich are in the 0% tax bracket? How many jobs has your welfare recipient created today? How many rich get the earned income credit? Your problem is you are not good with math. If a person makes $1,000,000 and pays 30% in Fedaral taxes and then gets a tax cut of 1% they save $10,000 if a middle income person makes $50,000 and pays 10% in Federal tax and also gets the 1% tax cut they save $500.00. Does this mean it is a tax cut for the rich? No. Does the $50,000 person want his/her tax cut. You bet they do! Oh I forgot the welfare recipient did not get a tax cut. Maybe this has something to do with the fact they do not pay taxes to begin with! Plus unless you been living in a cave the last 25 years you will notice that actual tax revenue increases after tax rate cuts to your so called rich and decreases in years following tax hikes.

Answer 6

I think it's about time to stop the spending, take that the shovel away from the democrats before the drown us in red ink.

They are playing a shell game with these show trails to cover a money grab with $900 billions in new taxes for welfare programs.

Answer 7

when you don't offer tax cuts to the rich they take thier money and put it outside the U.S. to make tax shelters. this causes less money to be spent domesticly by the wealthy and thus large business becomes stagnant and we end up with more debt. like it or not the only real way to win is to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on every type of program people can think of, trim the fat and work off the debt.

Answer 8

Zero debt is better. Primarily because with a zero debt there can be a tax cut for everyone since the government will not need the money that is presently being used to pay off the debt and interest.

Answer 9

Tax cuts for the rich. Spurs economic growth which reduces the debt as a percentage of GDP. Win-win.

Edit: The "P" in GDP stands for Product....what we produce, not what we purchase. Yes, the middle class may purchase more...the rich invest capital to PRODUCE more. If you build it, they will come. If economic growth is consumption driven, why do we subtract imports when we calculate growth?

Answer 10

In 1988, the INTEREST on the national debt passed the gross national product. If we stop deficit spending, and feed our entire income into the national debt, it would continue to grow.

Zero debt can NOT be accomplished unless we declare NO interest on bonds, etc.

Stop dreaming, and smell the sh*t.

Answer 11

Zero debt is better for the dollar. How do we get there? More taxes or less spending?