Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spending cuts do not mean layoffs. Sometimes, yes. Cuts in highway spending, for instance, would mean layoffs.
Cuts in food stamps, for instance, would not mean layoffs. Cuts in farm subsidies, would not mean layoffs. Cuts in defense may or may not mean layoffs.
It is very dependant on each cut, specifically.
How do you figure? Food Stamps go to low income people who spend every nickel they get. Cutting their food budget means they cut their purchases. When they cut their purchases, stores receive less revenue. When stores receive less revenue, they cut back their staff.
When farms don't receive subsidies, prices rise. When prices rise, less gets sold. If suppliers sell less, they need fewer workers.
In essence, government either hires people directly; hires contractors and suppliers; or makes transfer payments. Cutting any of these reduces employment and GDP.
How do you figure? Food Stamps go to low income people who spend every nickel they get. Cutting their food budget means they cut their purchases. When they cut their purchases, stores receive less revenue. When stores receive less revenue, they cut back their staff.
When farms don't receive subsidies, prices rise. When prices rise, less gets sold. If suppliers sell less, they need fewer workers.
In essence, government either hires people directly; hires contractors and suppliers; or makes transfer payments. Cutting any of these reduces employment and GDP.
Because people need to eat, thats why. And farmers aren't going to farm less, they are going to farm the exact same amount and sale it at a cheaper price, or more likely exports will be higher.
Another example of spending cuts that wouldn't lead to unemployment increases, the 8 billion dollars a year we split between Israel and Egypt for their militarys
How do you figure? Food Stamps go to low income people who spend every nickel they get. Cutting their food budget means they cut their purchases. When they cut their purchases, stores receive less revenue. When stores receive less revenue, they cut back their staff.
When farms don't receive subsidies, prices rise. When prices rise, less gets sold. If suppliers sell less, they need fewer workers.
In essence, government either hires people directly; hires contractors and suppliers; or makes transfer payments. Cutting any of these reduces employment and GDP.
no they eman cuts as stated even in defense because huge amounts of dollars goes to civilian employees from bases to contrctors. As far as farmers they already get subsidies in farm Bill. I alos know that food stamps are use a cureny to buy drungs also.But bascially we are goig to have to cut because you can keep spending what you don't have. balance budget ammaendment is the only way to stop governamnt spending its been shown.Also it not naymore wise to let those with no skin inthe game makes spending decisions than give your kid a credit card. We are approching 505 who pay no income tax and that is totlally unjustifed in their not supportig what they want i services.300 billion a year the government reports it loses in unreportede income alone thru taxation fraud. A good reason to reform tax code make taxes owed by total compnestion at lower rates with one page filing.
Because people need to eat, thats why. And farmers aren't going to farm less, they are going to farm the exact same amount and sale it at a cheaper price, or more likely exports will be higher.
Another example of spending cuts that wouldn't lead to unemployment increases, the 8 billion dollars a year we split between Israel and Egypt for their militarys
People cut their food budgets all the time and farmers do cut production.
The 8 billion you identified isn't as much as a rounding error in the federal budget and not worth discussing.
The undeniable fact is that federal money goes somewhere and is income to those who get it. When income is reduced demand disappears; the value of houses, cars and so on drops, because no one can pay the price they used to. Businesses can't sell their stock, they lay off workers who now have no money to buy stuff with, and the vicious cycle continues as tax revenue plunges, the (foolish) government cuts spending and roads and schools don't get built, construction workers get laid of, et patati et patata.
This should sound very familiar to anyone who took an entry level economics course but the European governments seem not to understand, and the GOP pretends not to either.
I mean, the top 10% income earners pay a whopping 71% of the nation's taxes, while the bottom 50% earners pay NOTHING! And this problem of tax burden inequality is getting worse and worse.
Of national income taxes. Total tax burden is very different. The US has the highest income inequality of any developed nation, with the highest amount going to the top 10% or top 1%. That's why the income tax code is skewed.
Quote:
I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced to ZERO. That would immediately create 8 million jobs and bring our jobs back on American soil and leave China in the dust. This would create 8 million new taxpayers, which of course, increases revenue for the government. Isn't that common sense?
Isn't the corporate tax rate on profits? If a business isn't making much profit, it's not being taxed much. If hiring more workers will increase its profits, it will do so whether some of its profits are being taken as taxes or not.
I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced to ZERO. ?
Agree. Corporate taxes just make the politicians look good. They are always passed on to consumers. But since they are hidden (buried in the price of products), the working stiffs don't realize that they are paying corporated taxes.
How do we know that? Did he release all of his tax returns? No.
He claims to pay 17%, which is a lower rate than I pay and I don't have his income.
And we know he wouldn't lie.
By the way, where are his tax returns? He hasn't even released the one year that he promised.
I hope the Obama campaign makes a huge deal out of his off-shore accounts and his refusal to release his tax returns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
