What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[Derek Wolff]

I personally don't take much favor with either Obama's economic policy nor McCains. It doesn't seem like either would make a difference, if you believe one would please state your reasons for believing so. But this topic was created for third options. What are our third options?

[ironeagle]

I think we need a solid middle ground not socialism and not total ignorance, we also don't need bigger government.

[nerdvincent]

Let's grow potatoes in our backyard.

More seriously:
-Re-think the definition of money, which is the equivalent of work done and not private ownership of industries (shareholders...). This would mean "stop stupid speculation" and "who doesn't work doesn't eat". How could it fail?

Yeah, I know... I'm a mudblood satanist children-raping socialist.

[Derek Wolff]

Mudblood? You watch far too much harry potter. I'm rather surprised there aren't more posts in this thread. This should be an incredibly important topic for America.

But I agree with you nerdvincent. People who do not work should not get a salary from the government. But there is the issue of so many people taking out loans to keep up with the costs of living and housing. How many people can actually afford a home these days? We should let the housing market sink, there is a reason it is sinking. We cannot sustain this market anymore, we cannot keep going into debt. I do not understand why the government believes it can make these companies float by putting OUR money into them and expect the economy to remain stable while these companies do nothing but produce unused products or products that we cannot afford.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Derek Wolff Mudblood? You watch far too much harry potter. .

Or perhaps american watch too much healthy cartoons.

Quote by: Derek Wolff But I agree with you nerdvincent. People who do not work should not get a salary from the government.

Or from owning the means of production.

Quote by: Derek Wolff But there is the issue of so many people taking out loans to keep up with the costs of living and housing. How many people can actually afford a home these days? We should let the housing market sink, there is a reason it is sinking. We cannot sustain this market anymore, we cannot keep going into debt. I do not understand why the government believes it can make these companies float by putting OUR money into them and expect the economy to remain stable while these companies do nothing but produce unused products or products that we cannot afford.

Absolutly. The idea of boosting the economy with debt was shitty in the beggining: now we need a return to the real value of america, with no virtual money.

[ironeagle]

Here's an idea keep manufacturing in AMerica and then pay people what it costs to take care of their families then I don't care what corporations do with the rest.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: ironeagle Here's an idea keep manufacturing in AMerica and then pay people what it costs to take care of their families then I don't care what corporations do with the rest.

Sorry, but this is a very irresponsible statement.
You produce $300 worth of goods or services in a day, they give you $75 "to take care of your family", they put $225 clear in their pocket for "owning" the factory, thank you and see you tomorow for the same sh*t? And you just say you don't care of being given "just what is needed to be kept alive" instead of being given the integrity of what you produced (minus the cost of production and the potential investment)?
You say that their un-earned money will benefit the whole? You prefer drinking water from the drain and swallow the occasional spitting of the capitalist instead of drinking it directly from the fountain?
But you should care. Capitalists won't pee in your toilet.

[Derach]

EASY!!

Need to increase revenue and 'create' jobs ... right?

OK ... First, legalize, regulate and tax all forms of gambling. From sportsbooks to online poker to casinos.

Then ... Legalize, regulate and tax prostitution.

Then ... Legalize, regulate and tax marijuana (farmers rejoice!)

Finally ... impose price controls on gasoline. Fix prices relative to crude oil at 125% of market value. So basically prices would always be 1/4 higher than they 'should' ... use 1/2 the revenue to offset road diesel costs and heating oil costs ... the other 1/2 goes directly to towns and municipalities for road/bridge repair.

Every metropolitan area also has to revisit its public transportation access and efficiency.

Get the federal government out of education.

and POOF ... depression avoided.

[barts]

To help the American economy,

1. Raise taxes on wealthier Americans, those with more than $100,000 of taxable income. These are people in the top 5% of the American economy, and who obviously are still earning a good living despite the recession. $100,000 in taxable income is not "middle class", it's "wealthy class." Middle class is gross family incomes in the $30,000-$50,000 range.

2. Introduce a 10% carbon tax to encourage conservation in all areas and reduce foreign oil imports, particularly those that come from dirty sources like Canada's tar sands.

3. Introduce a national consumption (sales) tax of 8%.

To save money, cut the U.S. military budget by 35%.

To make American businesses more competitive and increase labor mobility, introduce national a single payer health care system.

Spend the above taxes and savings on infrastructure and services that cannot be outsourced and have lasting productivity value at home: expenditures such as public transit, road improvements, national high speed rail system, universal ultra-high speed broadband, teacher improvement programs, early childhood education, home energy efficiency refits, medical and other research that keeps discoveries in public domain, etc.

For the tax cuts dogmatists, let me point out that people without jobs and businesses without profits don't pay taxes. Tax cuts don't help them. As well, given the state of the U.S. economy too much of a tax cut on those who are better off will be spent on products that don't benefit Americans but rather workers and businesses primarily in China and India, and debt reduction which doesn't create jobs.

And lastly, nationalize the banking system so that the Ponzi scheme now in place cannot, once again, destroy the economy.

For support of some of the above see Why You Should Be Screaming for Higher Taxes.

I would welcome objections to the above policy that might offer something beyond the usual "Commie", "Socialist" name-calling, content devoid, right wing diatribes.

And, lastly I know that the above requires so many sacred American cows to be killed that it is all politically impossible. But the question in the OP was "What policies could possibly improve our economy"? not what would Americans actually be capable of doing.

[Derach]

A carbon tax is unfeasable for the US because we lack a comprehensive energy plan. The tax would only increase the cost to consumer without providing a benefit. There is too much fluxuation in the price of energy to impose more taxes on it.

I wouldn't be opposed to a corporate carbon tax or a credit to low income households who do not have such a large carbon footprint anyways, but I would oppose any attempt to raise taxes on poor people for their electric or heating bills.

Cutting the military budget would only be feasible if there was strict oversight and accountability of the money being spent. There is so much pork in the military budget that a 35% cut could be accomplished without losing a thing ... I'm sure you could recoup that from organizational and accounting improvments alone.

Another thing I'd do is impose a much simpler income tax code and shave about 75% of the IRS budget.

I wouldn't mind a consumption sales tax, but 4% would suffice and I'd make most clothing and food exempt.

[barts]

A recent article in the Toronto Globe and Mail speaks indirectly to this issue. See Crashonomics: the secret formula.

[shawmutt]

Raise taxes on wealthier Americans, those with more than $100,000 of taxable income. These are people in the top 5% of the American economy, and who obviously are still earning a good living despite the recession. $100,000 in taxable income is not "middle class", it's "wealthy class." Middle class is gross family incomes in the $30,000-$50,000 range.

Jeez, $100,000 is wealthy? Why does that number keep dropping? My family gets taxed any more on our income and we may have to quit one of our jobs just to get less taxes!

2. Introduce a 10% carbon tax to encourage conservation in all areas and reduce foreign oil imports, particularly those that come from dirty sources like Canada's tar sands. 3. Introduce a national consumption (sales) tax of 8%.

So tax the rich and tax the poor? Where is all this tax revenue going to go? It's common knowledge that the more money that's made, the more money is spent. Without spending reform, more revenue just makes for more waste.

When taxing the crap out of people is the answer, how is this an incentive to "live the American dream"? How is this an incentive for individuals and companies to make more money and grow the economy?

Spending reform is the answer, and hopefully Obama and the new "productivity" cabinet member are serious and can enact it. When government has to tighten it's belt a bit, we find out what are the truly important programs and what programs need to go. A good example of wasted government funds is NCCAM, a division of the NIH.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt Jeez, $100,000 is wealthy? Why does that number keep dropping? My family gets taxed any more on our income and we may have to quit one of our jobs just to get less taxes! So tax the rich and tax the poor? Where is all this tax revenue going to go? It's common knowledge that the more money that's made, the more money is spent. Without spending reform, more revenue just makes for more waste.

Yes, a person with $100,000 of taxable income is wealthy. It's contrary to the data to think that a single person with a taxable income of $100,000 is middle class. In 2007, the median gross household income (not taxable income) was about $50,000. [Source]

As for "where is all this tax revenue going to go?", ultimately it all goes to people's wages in America. Is it better to have a tax cut, which only benefits those with jobs or profits, or a job? That's the choice. It is better in my view, to have a job and pay taxes, rather than have no job or be underemployed and pay no taxes.

What the US economy needs is not tax cuts, but more people with jobs paying taxes, even if those taxes are higher than some would like.

[grandpa]

Wealth is ultimately relative, and shouldn't be regarded entirely as a percentage of income. A thing rarely stressed is how money essentially means nothing without people to make the products, provide the services and come up with the ideas. Without actual efforts there simply is no wealth. Dollar amounts mean nothing.

Unless this is in mind at all times, no policy is going to matter.

Grandpa h.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: barts Yes, a person with $100,000 of taxable income is wealthy. It's contrary to the data to think that a single person with a taxable income of $100,000 is middle class.

Are we talking about a single person or a household?

In 2007, the median gross household income (not taxable income) was about $50,000.

Median, which means half of households have more, half have less. I'm not sure how this relates to relative wealth.

From your wiki article:

Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two or more income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705.

Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of approximately one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and $57,657.

Households in the lowest quintile had incomes less than $19,178 and the majority had no income earner.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt Are we talking about a single person or a household?

I was talking about a single person with $100,000 of taxable income, not gross income, and that would include those in the top 5% of income earners, hardly middle class.This is substantially more than mean household income, which tends to be measured as gross income and often includes multiple earners.

My point is that individuals who earn more than $100,000 of taxable income annually are wealthy and not middle class, despite what some would like us to believe.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: barts I was talking about a single person with $100,000 of taxable income, not gross income, and that would include those in the top 5% of income earners, hardly middle class.This is substantially more than mean household income, which tends to be measured as gross income and often includes multiple earners. My point is that individuals who earn more than $100,000 of taxable income annually are wealthy and not middle class, despite what some would like us to believe.

OK, so for clarification--where would you put wealthy for households, i.e. two earners married filing jointly?

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt OK, so for clarification--where would you put wealthy for households, i.e. two earners married filing jointly?

For the sake of the discussion, $200,000 of taxable income. The issue at hand, shawmutt, is can these individuals and households bear a greater tax burden and still enjoy a high quality life style, and the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Don't you agree?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: barts For the sake of the discussion, $200,000 of taxable income. The issue at hand, shawmutt, is can these individuals and households bear a greater tax burden and still enjoy a high quality life style, and the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Don't you agree?

Individuals at this income level are at a 33% tax rate. The top 50% of taxpayers already pay almost all of the income received--how much more do you want them to pay? The top 1% pays over 33% of the total income tax. They already pay the taxes that keep the government going, and keeps the programs like welfare funded. Can they still have a high quality lifestyle while paying higher taxes--sure. Why should they have to? Did they not earn that money?

(source: Who Pays the Most Income Tax?)

More government income does not equal better economic policy.

[barts]

Quote by: shawmutt Can they still have a high quality lifestyle while paying higher taxes--sure. Why should they have to? Did they not earn that money? More government income does not equal better economic policy.

They should pay more because they can pay more with marginal impact on their lifestyles, and because it is the wealthiest who benefit most from the society at large. 33% is hardly a high tax rate for the top tier of income.

As for the question "Did they not earn that money?" it applies to everyone who pays taxes. Why take money from the poorer people who benefit least from the economy and the society?

And as for your final assertion, it's essentially meaningless as it stands.